United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division
SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN, Petitioner,
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
O'CONNOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by petitioner, Samson M.
Loynachan, a state prisoner confined in the Correctional
Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (TDCJ), against Lorie Davis, director of TDCJ,
Respondent. After considering the pleadings and relief sought
by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition
should be dismissed without prejudice on exhaustion grounds.
was indicted for capital murder in Tarrant County, Texas, in
the death of Chloe Robinson, a child younger than six years
of age. Adm. R., Clerk's R., vol. 1, 9, ECF No. 22-24.
Following a jury trial, the jury found Petitioner guilty and,
on May 29, 2012, assessed his punishment at life
imprisonment. Id., vol. 2, 379 & 386, ECF No.
22-25. Petitioner appealed, but the Thirteenth District Court
of Appeals of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment,
and, on November 18, 2015, the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals refused Petitioner's petition for discretionary
review. Id., Mem. Op., ECF No. 22-14 & Email
Notice, ECF No. 22-17. Petitioner did not seek writ of
certiorari or pursue postconviction state habeas relief. Pet.
4, ECF No. 3.
raises ten grounds for relief that fall within the following
→ Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel
(grounds one through eight);
→ The accumulation of errors violated his right to due
process (ground nine); and
→ All other constitutional error (ground ten). Supp. to
Pet. 1-5, ECF No. 4.
RULE 5 STATEMENT
preliminary response, Respondent asserts that she does not
belief the petition is time-barred or successive, however she
does believe the petition is a mixed petition- i.e.,
raises both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and should be
dismissed without prejudice so that Petitioner may fully
exhaust his claims in state court. Resp't's Answer
4-7, ECF No. 24.
seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2254 are required
to exhaust all claims in the state courts before requesting
federal habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1),
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
claim(s) 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 has not
yet filed a state habeas-corpus application and asserts that
all grounds raised in this federal petition are presented for
the first time. Pet. 13, ECF No. 3. Petitioner asserts that
he filed this protective petition to avoid expiration of the
federal one-year statute of limitations, and he sought a stay
and abeyance, which this Court denied on October 1, 2015.
Order, ECF No. 11.
inspection of Petitioner's state court pleadings reveals
that the petition is, in fact, a mixed petition. See
Johnson v. Quarterman,479 F.3d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 2007)
(claim raised in petitioner's response to Anders
brief and pro se petition for discretionary review was fairly
presented to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals for purposes
of exhaustion). It is well established that a mixed
habeas-corpus petition generally must be dismissed ...