Williams v. Stephens, No. 4:2014cv02098 - Document 3 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, denying 2 Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirements. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MARLON DANTRUCE WILLIAMS, TDCJ NO. 935987, § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2098 WILLIAM STEPHENS, Director, Texa§ Department of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions § Division, § § Respondent. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Marlon Dantruce Williams (TDCJ No. 935987) is a state inmate incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice pursuant to a state court judgment. Williams has filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a state court conviction while a state post-conviction application for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the same conviction, currently pending. is For reasons explained below, this action will be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Williams is serving a life prison sentence pursuant to a state court conviction for murder. State v. Williams, No. (178th Dist. Ct., Harris County, Tex. Jul. 13, 2000). 820802-A He states that his conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas. (Petition, Docket Entry No. I, p. 3). He does not (PDR) was indicate that a petition for discretionary review Williams filed. states that he filed a state application for a writ of habeas corpus r pursuant to Article 11.07 of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure r on March 13 r states that the application is still pending. 2012. rd. rd. at 4. He Williams also asserts that he has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus that was denied by the Court of Criminal Appeals. (Petitioner r s Motion to Waive Exhaustion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (B) (ii) Docket Entry No. 2r pp. 7-8) II. Analysis This court verified that Williams r s conviction was affirmed by the San Antonio Court of Appeals and that no PDR was filed. Williams v. Stater 62 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App. - San Antonio r 2001). This court has also verified that a state habeas application is currently being processed by the Harris County District Clerkrs Office where it was filed on March 13 r 2012. See Website for Harris County Clerkrs Office: Under 28 U.S.C. available courts. 1997). 2009) state § http://www.hcdistrictclerk.com. 2254(b) remedies a habeas petitioner must exhaust r before seeking relief See Nobles v. Johnson r 127 F.3d 409 r in the 419-420 See also Wion v. Quarterman r 567 F.3d 146 r ("Before pursuing federal 148 federal (5th Cir. (5th Cir. habeas relief r a petitioner is required to exhaust all state procedures for relief.) citing Orman v. Cain,. 228 F.3d 616 r 619-20 (5th Cir.2000). -2 - To exhaust his state remedies, the petitioner must present the substance of his claims to the state courts, and the claims must have been fairly presented to the highest court of the state. Nobles, citing Picard v. (1971) Collins, Connor, 919 F.2d 1074, requirement Thompson, is 92 S.Ct. 1076 based on the 509, 512-13 (5th Cir. 1990). principle 111 S. Ct. 2546,2555 of i at 420, Myers v. The exhaustion comity. Coleman v. Federal courts follow (1991). this principle to afford the state courts the first opportunity "to address and correct alleged violations of state prisoner's federal rights. Therefore, II a habeas petitioner must exhaust his state court remedies before presenting his constitutional claims in a federal petition. See Rhines v. Weber, 128 S. Ct. 1528, 1533 (2005) . Regardless of whether the claims in this action are identical to those presented in the current state application, this court will not adjudicate an application while habeas claims are under review by the state courts. 797 (5th pending, comity Cir. 1993) See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, ("Because Deters' state appeal is still we would have to ignore the doctrine of federal-state by disrupting Williams v. Bailey, that ongoing 463 F. 2d 247, state 248 process. ") (5th Cir. i 1972) see also ("federal disruption of the state judicial appellate process would be an unseemly and uncalled for interference that comity between our dual system forbids"). Williams must wait until the state courts issue -3- a decision. He cannot circumvent the state system and seek relief See Graham v. Collins, in federal court. Cir. 1996) Bailey, i Deters, 464 F.2d 560, 985 969 (5th 792-794. See also Bryant v. (5th Cir. 1972). If a federal habeas F.2d at 561 94 F.3d 958, petition is filed while state remedies are still being pursued, a federal court has the authority to dismiss the federal petition. Brewer v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice for failure of the petitioner to exhaust all available remedies on all his claims to the state's highest court of jurisdiction as required by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. criminal § 2254. Should Williams file a notice of appeal, the court denies the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 386 (5th Cir. 1998) i Murphy v. Johnson, 110 F.3d 10, 11 (5th Cir. 1997). III. Conclusion 1. This Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by a person in state custody (Docket Entry No.1), is DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 3. The Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirements (Docket Entry No.2) is DENIED for the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order. 3. The Clerk will provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the petitioner and to the respondent by -4- providing one copy to the Attorney General of the State of Texas. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 25th day of July, 2014. / SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
