Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-1408-G.
June 30, 2003.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nature of the Case: This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state inmate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
B. Parties Petitioner is an inmate currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID). Respondent is Janie Cockrell, Director of TDCJ-ID.
C. Statement of the Case: On March 18, 1994, petitioner pled guilty of unlawful possession of a controlled substance and was sentenced to four years imprisonment in Cause No. F94-50762-WS. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet.) at 1-2.) He did not appeal this conviction. ( Id. ¶ 8.) He has filed no petition, application, or motion relating to this conviction in state court. ( Id. ¶ 10.) Nevertheless, he contends that he has filed a petition for discretionary review (PDR). ( Id. ¶ 11.) Research has revealed, however, that such PDR was filed with respect to Cause No. F99-02448-MT, not the conviction challenged in the instant action. See Worthy v. State, No. 05-00-00072-CR, http://www.courtstuff.com/FILES/05/00/05000072.HTM (docket sheet information generated Apr. 25, 2003) (Official internet site of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist. of Tex. at Dallas); Worthy v. State, No. 05-00-00106-CR, http://www.courtstuff.com/FILES/05/00/05000106.HTM (docket sheet information generated Apr. 25, 2003) (Official internet site of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Dist. of Tex. at Dallas). Petitioner concedes that the instant federal petition is the first time he has raised his claims of involuntary plea and trial court error to any court. ( Id. at ¶ 22.) In addition, he indicates that he has a federal petition pending in this Court that he filed in August 2002. ( Id. ¶ 23.)
Petitioner in fact filed two federal petitions in August 2002. One relates to a 1999 conviction. See Worthy v. Cockrell, No. 3:02-CV-1704-G (N.D. Tex.). (Pet. filed Aug. 12, 2002). The other relates to a 2001 conviction. See Worthy v. Cockrell, No. 3:02-CV-1705-D (N.D. Tex.) (Pet. filed Aug. 12, 2002). Because these petitions relate to other convictions they are immaterial to the issues now before the Court.
II. FAILURE TO EXHAUST
A petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust in accordance with § 2254 when challenging a conviction, a petitioner must fairly present the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court for review prior to raising it in federal court. See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985); Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982). In Texas, a prisoner must present claims that challenge his conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in a petition for discretionary review or an application for writ of habeas corpus. See Bautista v. McCotter, 793 F.2d 109, 110 (5th Cir. 1986); Richardson, 762 F.2d at 432.
In this case, petitioner has presented no claim related to his 1994 conviction to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. A federal district court may raise the lack of exhaustion sua sponte. Shute v. State, 117 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 1997). It is well-settled that federal courts can dismiss without prejudice a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus that contains unexhausted grounds for relief. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). As a matter of comity, the state courts must be given a fair opportunity to hear and consider the claims raised by an applicant before those claims are heard in federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). A federal habeas petition that contains unexhausted claims must be dismissed in its entirety. Thomas v. Collins, 919 F.2d 333,334 (5th Cir. 1990); Bautista, 793 F.2d at 110.
Because petitioner has presented no claim to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, that court has had no opportunity to review the claims raised herein. A ruling from the federal court at this juncture would preempt the state court from performing its proper function. See Rose, 455 U.S. at 518 (the exhaustion requirement is "designed to protect the state courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent the disruption of state judicial proceedings"). Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to habeas corpus relief for failure to exhaust his state remedies.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge hereby recommends that the instant habeas corpus petition be DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBTECT
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation on all parties by mailing a copy to each of them. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), any party who desires to object to these findings, conclusions and recommendation must file and serve written objections within ten (10) days after being served with a copy. A party filing objections must specifically identify those findings, conclusions or recommendation to which objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusory or general objections. Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation within ten days after being served with a copy shall bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted by the District Court, except upon grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) ( en banc).