United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
PITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is Petitioner's Application for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner, proceeding
pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner's application
for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice for
failure to exhaust state court remedies.
to Petitioner, the Director has custody of her pursuant to a
judgment and sentence of the 52nd Judicial District Court of
Coryell County, Texas. Petitioner asserts she was sentenced
on December 18, 2016. Petitioner admits she did not appeal
her conviction or file a state application for habeas corpus
fundamental prerequisite to federal habeas corpus relief
under Title 28 U.S.C. §2254 is the exhaustion of all
claims in state court prior to requesting federal collateral
relief. Sterling v. Scott, 57 F.3d 451, 453 (5th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1050 (1996).
Section 2254(b) provides:
(1) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a
person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court
shall not be granted unless it appears that:
(A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State; or
(B) (i) there is an absence of available State corrective
process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such process
ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.
28 U.S.C. § 2254. This requirement is designed in the
interests of comity and federalism to give state courts the
initial opportunity to pass upon and correct errors of
federal law in a state prisoner's conviction. Picard
v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-76 (1971). The purpose and
policy underlying the exhaustion doctrine is to preserve the
role of the state courts in the application and enforcement
of federal law and prevent disruption of state criminal
proceedings. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518
(1982)(citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973)).
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 “must be dismissed
if state remedies have not been exhausted as to any of the
federal claims.” Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S.
346, 349 (1989). The exhaustion doctrine “requires that
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals be given an opportunity
to review and rule upon the petitioner's claim before he
resorts to the federal courts.” Richardson v.
Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 1985). Once a
federal claim has been fairly presented to the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, either through direct appeal or collateral
attack, the exhaustion requirement is satisfied. See
generally, Castille, 489 U.S. at 351. In order
to avoid piecemeal litigation, all grounds raised in a
federal application for writ of habeas corpus must first be
presented to the state's highest criminal court prior to
being presented in federal court. Rose, 455 U.S. at
522. If even one claim is unexhausted, the entire petition
must be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies.
present case, Petitioner has not presented her claims to the
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Accordingly, there has been
no fair presentation of her claims to the state court, and
thus, the state court has not had the initial opportunity to
pass upon and correct any alleged errors of federal law.
Nevertheless, the exhaustion requirement can be excused when
exceptional circumstances exist. Deters v. Collins,
985 F.2d 789 (5th Cir. 1993). However, Petitioner makes no
allegations that any exceptional circumstances are present in
Court finds that Petitioner has failed to exhaust her state
court remedies and has failed to allege any circumstances
which would allow ...