Opinion
NO. 7:13-CV-11 (HL)
02-21-2013
ROBERT ARNOLD SHARPE, JR., Petitioner, v. Warden STANLEY WILLIAMS, Respondent.
ORDER
On February 5, 2013, the Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by Petitioner ROBERT ARNOLD SHARPE, JR. (Doc. 6). The basis for dismissal was Petitioner's failure to exhaust his state court remedies, as he has pending a state habeas action. Petitioner subsequently filed a pleading that the Clerk's Office has docketed as a motion to reconsider (Doc. 8) and a motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 9).
In his motion for reconsideration, Petitioner references 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (the Declaratory Judgment Act), 28 U.S.C. § 2283 (the Anti-Injunction Act), and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Such authorities have no application in a habeas corpus action. The habeas petition is the exclusive vehicle through which Petitioner can challenge his conviction or sentence. Preiser v. Rodriquez , 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). Because Petitioner provides no valid no basis for this Court to revisit its dismissal of this action, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED and his motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.
_______________
HUGH LAWSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cr