Watkins v. Stephens, No. 5:2015cv00977 - Document 17 (W.D. Tex. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION, Petitioner Watkin's has not exhausted his state remedies, therefore the Court will construe Respondent's answer as a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner's 2254 Petition. It is Ordered that the 2254 Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state remedies. All other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (wg)

Download PDF
Watkinsv.Stephens Doc.17 FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT of TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 2016FEB23 NORMAN WATKINS, TDCJ # 1906326, Pfl 2: 12 § § Petitioner § § v. Civil Action No. SA-15-CA-977-XR § § WILLIAM STEPHENS, § Texas Department of Criminal Justice § Correctional Institutions Division Director, § § Respondent § MEMORANDUM DECISION Before the Court is Petitioner Norman Watkins' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Habeas Corpus Petition and Respondent's Answer seeking dismissal of the Petition for failure to exhaust State remedies. Watkin's § 2254 Petition challenges his Comal county guilty plea to felony driving while intoxicated in State v. Watkins, No. CR-2013-357 (Tex. 207th Jud. Dist. Ct.,jmt. entered Dec. 16, 2013). Watkins did not directly appeal his conviction. Respondent moves for dismissal of the Petition because Watkins' State habeas corpus application, in Exparte Norman Watkins, No. WR82,645-1, is still pending in State court. Watkins acknowledges, and the State record available online shows, his State habeas corpus application is pending. Section 2254(b) states "a writ of habeas corpus ... shall not be granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State." The exhaustion doctrine is based on comity for state court processes and the principle that state courts should be given the first opportunity to correct alleged federal constitutional violations. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S. Ct. 1198, 71 L. Ed. 2d 379 (1982). "[T]he federal claim must be fairly presented to the state courts.. . [so that] the state courts have had the first opportunity to hear the Dockets.Justia.com Ed. claim sought to be vindicated." Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-276, 92 S. Ct. 509, 30 L. Texas 2d 438 (1971). To exhaust state remedies in Texas, a petitioner must present his claim to the Court of Criminal Appeals by direct appeal or through a post-conviction writ application. Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 431(5th Cir. 1985). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not addressed Watkins' claims, and thus Watkins has not exhausted his State remedies. Watkins must exhaust his state remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief from this Court. Accordingly, Respondent's Answer construed as a motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and to Petitioner Watkins' § 2254 Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure exhaust state remedies. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. DATED: February , 2016 XAVIER RODRIGUEZ United States District Court

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.