Saddler v. Circuit Court of Lowndes County, No. 1:2012cv00078 - Document 6 (N.D. Miss. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re 5 Order Dismissing Case. Signed by Glen H. Davidson on 5/14/12. (mhg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI EASTERN DIVISION i PETITIONER DOMINICO SADDLER NO. i:12CV078-D-A V. CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY kSPONDENT MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner, an inmate currently housed in the Lowndes County Detention Center, files this matt¢r pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 2254. Petitioner complains about a state conviction arising out of a Jomestic dispute. Noticeably absent from the pleadings, however, is any proof or allegation that Petitioner has ; presented his claim to the State's highest court. After carefully considering the contents of the pro se petition and giving it the liberal ! construction required by Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), this court has com¢ to the following conclusion. . ! 1 It is well-settled that a state prisoner seeking habeas corpus relief in federal court is first ! required to exhaust his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1) and (c);lsee also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982). An applicant "shall not be deemed to have exhau~ed the remedies I ! available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of [§ 2254] ifhe has the ri$ht under the law of the State to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). Thus, it is a fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas relief that a petitioner exhaust all his claims in state court prior to seeking federal collateral relief. Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 4151,453 (5th Cir. 1995). To satisfY this requirement, the petitioner "must give the state courts an dpportunity to act i on his claims before he presents those claims to a federal court in a habeas petition." 0 'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). Accordingly, "when a prisoner alleges tHat his continued confinement for a state court conviction violates federal law, the state courts should have the first opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief." Id at 844. Petitioner's complaint is premature. Before relief may be granted in a federW habeas petition i under § 2254, he must exhaust available state court remedies. See Miss. Code Aim. §§ 99-39-1 et seq. It is clear, Petitioner has not presented his claims to the State's highest coum. Therefore, his I petition will be dismissed without prejudice. A final judgment in ~ordance with this opinion will be entered. THIS the / t day of May, 2012. . Jf jJSJ'AA-f2L SEN JUDGE i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COllIRT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISS~SSIPPI 2
]]>
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.
