Filed: Feb. 18, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER REED C. O'CONNOR , District Judge . Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 filed by Petitioner, Leticia McWilliams, a state prisoner who was confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the time this petition was filed, against Williams Stephens, Director of TDCJ, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded t
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER REED C. O'CONNOR , District Judge . Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 filed by Petitioner, Leticia McWilliams, a state prisoner who was confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the time this petition was filed, against Williams Stephens, Director of TDCJ, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded th..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
REED C. O'CONNOR, District Judge.
Before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner, Leticia McWilliams, a state prisoner who was confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) at the time this petition was filed, against Williams Stephens, Director of TDCJ, Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that Respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted and the petition dismissed on exhaustion grounds.
I. BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2010, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty in Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 1174887D, to intoxication assault and received a probated ten-year sentence. Resp't Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. A 2-4, ECF No. 17-2.1 The conditions of Petitioner's community supervision were extensive. On April 4, 2014, following a hearing, the trial court revoked her community supervision on the state's motion and sentenced her to four years' confinement. Id. at 5-7. Petitioner is no longer confined in TDCJ and is currently residing at the Fort Worth Transitional Center.
II. ISSUES
In this habeas petition, Petitioner raises four grounds for relief:
(1) court documents contain false information;
(2) court documents contain signatures that do not belong to Judge Robb Catalano or herself;
(3) court documents have been legally altered; and
(4) fraudulent court documents resulted in her "illegal incarcerations."
Pet. 6-7, ECF No. 7.
Petitioner seeks immediate release, immediate legal assistance, legal help and legal protection, removal from community supervision and the Texas legal system, and assistance with housing, medical and dental care, and other expenses. Id. at 7.
III. RULE 5 STATEMENT
Respondent does not assert the petition is barred by limitations or subject to the successive-petition bar. Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss 5-6, ECF No. 17. He does, however, assert Petitioner's claims are unexhausted for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).
IV. EXHAUSTION
Applicants seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254 are required to exhaust all claims in the state courts before requesting federal collateral relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), (c)2; Fisher v. Texas, 169 F.3d 295, 302 (5th Cir. 1999). A state petitioner may satisfy the exhaustion requirement by presenting both the factual and legal substance of his or her claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in either a petition for discretionary review or a state habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West 2015); Alexander v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 906, 908-09 (5th Cir. 1998); Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 484 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).
Petitioner did not properly raise the instant claims on direct appeal of the judgment revoking her community supervision nor has she demonstrated that she has raised the claims in a state habeas corpus application.3, 4 In fact, she answered question 24 in the form petition in the negative when asked if she has any petition or appeal now pending in any court, either state or federal, for the judgment you are challenging, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's website does not show that a state habeas application was received in that court after direct appeal was concluded. Pet. 8, ECF No. 7. Accordingly, Petitioner's claims are not exhausted as required by § 2254(b)(1)(A).
Therefore, to the extent Petitioner's claims are not rendered moot by her release, she must first pursue her state habeas corpus remedies, in addition to any applicable administrative remedies, before seeking relief under § 2254. Absent a showing that state remedies are inadequate, such showing not having been demonstrated, she cannot now proceed in federal court in habeas corpus. Dismissal of this federal habeas corpus proceeding for lack of exhaustion is warranted so that Petitioner can fully exhaust her state remedies and then return to this court, if she so desires, after exhaustion has been properly and fully accomplished.5, 6
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed herein, Respondent's motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2254 is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies. Also, for the reasons discussed herein, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
