Steels v. Stephens, No. 4:2015cv00679 - Document 7 (S.D. Tex. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM ON DISMISSAL. Order granting 2 Petitioner's Motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All pending motions are DENIED. (Signed by Judge Ewing Werlein, Jr) Parties notified. (wbostic, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Steels v. Stephens Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION PRINCELLA VALENTINE STEELS, TDCJ-CID NO. 1926484, Petitioner, § § § § § § § § v. WILLIAM STEPHENS, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION H-15-0679 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DISMISSAL Petitioner Princella Valentine Steels, a state inmate proceeding pro se, seeks habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from a state court felony conviction. (Docket No.1.) Because Petitioner has not exhausted her state court remedies, the Court will dismiss this action. BACKGROUND On April 28, 2014, Petitioner was convicted in the 263rd Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, for fraudulent use or possession of identifying information (Cause No. 1416047). Offender Search website. confinement in the 1 TDCJ Petitioner was sentenced to twelve years Texas Department of Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Criminal Justice- Petitioner states that she filed a direct appeal from her conviction to the First Court of Appeals of Texas, but she indicates that the appeal is lhttp://offender.tdcj.state.tx.us/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?s id=02684185 (viewed April 7, 2015). Dockets.Justia.com still pending and she has not court. (Docket No.1 at 3.) received any response from that Petitioner also states that she filed a state habeas petition in the Texas First Court of Appeals on February 11, 00120-CV). case as 2015, which also remains pending (Id. at 4.) pending, it (Cause No. 01-15- Although public court records do show that is identified as an appeal from conviction in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas Courts website. 2 a 2012 Texas. A search of state court records did not reveal any appeals or petitions filed in regard to the conviction challenged in the instant petition. ANALYSIS Under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, a petitioner "must exhaust all available state remedies before he may obtain federal habeas corpus relief." Sones v. Hargett, 61 F.3d 410, 414 (5th Cir. 1995). doctrine of 2254 (b) (1) exhaustion, and (c), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C. The § reflects a policy of federal! state comity. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991). Those statutes provide in pertinent part as follows: (b) (1) (A) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or 2 http :((www.search.txcourts.gov(Case.aspx?cn=01-15-00120-CV&coa=coa01 (viewed April 7, 2015.) 2 (i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) (B) circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant. * * * * An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented. (c) 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (b) - (c). Under this framework, exhaustion means that a petitioner must have presented all of her habeas corpus claims fairly to the state's highest court before she may bring them to federal court. Fisher v. Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S. 346 (1989); State, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 1999). exhaustion in Texas may take one of two paths: Generally, (1) the petitioner may file a direct appeal followed, if necessary, by a Petition for Discretionary Review in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, or (2) she may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure in the convicting court which, if denied, is automatically transmitted to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Myers v. Collins, 919 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir.1990). "The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance of the federal habeas claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court." Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1999); 3 Fisher, 169 F. 3d at petitioner provides 302. the A claim is exhausted when a highest state court with habeas a "'fair opportunity to pass upon the claim,' which in turn requires that the applicant 'present his claims before the state courts in a procedurally proper manner according to the rules of the state courts.'" Mercadel, 179 F.3d at 275 (quoting Dupuy v. Butler, 837 F.2d 699, 702 (5th Cir. 1988)). In this case, Petitioner admits that she has not exhausted ~ state habeas remedies on her present claims (Docket No. 1 and public records also confirm this fact. Because Petitioner's claims are unexhausted, 24), her petition must be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY A Certificate of Appealability from a habeas corpus proceeding will not issue unless the petitioner makes "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." This standard debate whether "includes (or, for showing that that matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). reasonable agree jurists that) could the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. quotations and adequate citations to deserve omitted). encouragement 473, 484 Stated to (2000) proceed (internal differently, the petitioner "must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the 4 district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong." 2001). Id.; Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir. When denial of relief is based on procedural grounds, the petitioner must not only show that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right," but also that they "would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. " Beazley, 242 F. 3d at 263 (quoting Slack, 529 484); see also Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248 2000). sua u. S. at (5th Cir. A district court may deny a certificate of appealability, sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument. Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). Because Petitioner cannot make a substantial showing that reasonable jurists would find the Court's procedural ruling here debatable or wrong, a Certificate decision will be denied. 5 of Appealability from this CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Petitioner's Motion to Proceed In Forma (Docket No.2) is GRANTED. Pauperis 2. The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, for failure to exhaust all available state remedies as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 3. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 4. All other pending motions, if any, are DENIED. of this Order to Petitioner. The Clerk will provide SIGNED at Houston, Texas on ~~~~--~----~~~------- , 2015. ~~~-V./'/'/L/j7 UNITED ST 6 JUDGE ~
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
