REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

F. KEITH BALL, Magistrate Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by David Garland Atwood II. In his petition, Atwood seeks to require the City of Vicksburg to bring him to trial on a pending misdemeanor charge. Presently before the Court is the motion of the City of Vicksburg to dismiss. Having considered the petition, motion, and response to the motion, the undersigned recommends that the motion be granted and that the petition be dismissed without prejudice because of Atwood's failure to exhaust his state court remedies.

On July 2, 2011, Atwood was arrested and charged in the Municipal Court of Vicksburg, Mississippi with trespassing. He pleaded not guilty to the charge and was released on bond. Thereafter, he was incarcerated pursuant to a federal conviction. He is currently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and is housed at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina. His scheduled release date is April 2017. The trespassing charge remains pending. Atwood alleges that because of the pending trespass charge, he is ineligible for certain educational and psychological programs at the prison. He also alleges that but for the pending charge, he would otherwise be eligible for immediate release to a half-way house.

Relief pursuant to § 2241 in the form of an order requiring a state court to bring a defendant to trial is available only where the defendant has exhausted all means of obtaining relief in the state courts. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92; Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987). In his filings, Atwood alleges that he has repeatedly tried to have his case brought to trial and that he has appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The documents submitted by Atwood indicate the following: On February 1, 2015, he filed in the Vicksburg Municipal Court a motion requesting that the charges be dismissed because of the denial of his right to a speedy trial or, in the alternative, that he be brought to trial within 120 days. [11] at 7. On April 11, 2016, he filed a motion requesting that the case be set for trial within 30 days. [11] at 9. Also included is an order of the County Court of Warren County dated April 14, 2016, stating that some unspecified request for relief is denied, [11] at 10, and another order by that court, dated May 19, 2016, denying a motion for reconsideration, [11] at 11.

Thus, it appears that Atwood has made demands in the municipal court for a speedy trial and that these demands have been either denied or ignored. However, Atwood has not shown that he has pursued relief in the state's highest court. While his filings include a document purporting to be a notice of appeal to the Mississippi Supreme Court, [11] at 11, it is unsigned and bears no indication that it was ever filed. Furthermore, counsel for Respondent has represented in the motion to dismiss that Atwood has not sought relief from the Mississippi Supreme Court. Finally, a review of the online general docket of the Mississippi Supreme Court confirms that he has never raised his speedy trial issue with that court.1

Because Atwood has failed to present his speedy trial claim to the state's highest court, he has not yet exhausted all possible means of relief in state court. For this reason, the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed without prejudice so that Atwood may pursue his state court remedies.

The parties are hereby notified that failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained within this report and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).