United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Kenneth Woodson filed a pro se petition for a writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The District
Court referred the resulting civil action to the United
States magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and a standing order of reference. For the following reasons,
the petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state
February 20, 1987, Petitioner pleaded guilty to aggravated
sexual assault and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.
State of Texas v. Kenneth Charles Bell, No.
F86-94431-HL (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 5, Dallas County, Tex.,
Feb. 2o, 1987). On May 20, 2011, Petitioner was released to
mandatory supervision, but was taken into custody by the
United States Marshal on a federal charge. He was later
convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to 120 months in
prison. United States v. Kenneth Wayne Woodson, No.
3:07-cr-091-G (N.D. Tex. Dallas Division). On September 6,
2016, Petitioner pleaded guilty in state court to failure to
register as a sex offender. State of Texas v. Kevin Wayne
Woodson, No. F16-32546-X (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 6, Dallas
County, Tex., Sept. 6, 2016). He was sentenced to three years
in prison to run concurrently with the remainder of his
previous thirty-year state sentence. On September 23, 2016,
Petitioner's mandatory supervised release on his
thirty-year state sentence was revoked.
does not challenge any of his convictions in this action.
Instead, he argues Respondent is miscalculating his time
credits. On April 10, 2019, Respondent filed an answer
arguing the petition should be dismissed as time-barred or
for failure to exhaust state remedies. Petitioner did not
file a reply.
petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies before seeking
federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
This requires a petitioner to present his claims to the
highest available state court for review. Carter v.
Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982);
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 844-45
(1999). A federal habeas petition that contains unexhausted
claims cannot be granted. Thomas v. Collins, 919
F.2d 333, 334 (5th Cir. 1990).
exhaust his time credit claim, Petitioner was required to
file an administrative time credit dispute. See Tex.
Gov't Code § 501.0081; Ex parte Stokes, 15
S.W.3d 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Stone v. Thaler,
614 F.3d 136, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). Once Petitioner exhausted
his administrative remedies, he was required to exhaust his
state remedies by filing a state petition for writ of habeas
corpus raising this claim. Richardson v. Procunier,
762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985). Here, Petitioner did not
file a time credit claim under § 501.0081; nor did he
raise his time credit claim in a state habeas petition.
Petitioner has therefore failed to exhaust his state
the terms of § 2254(b)(2) provide that an application
for a writ of habeas corpus may be denied on the merits
notwithstanding the applicant's failure to exhaust his
state court remedies, complete exhaustion assists the federal
courts in their review because federal claims that have been
fully exhausted in state courts will necessarily be
accompanied by a more complete factual record. See Rose
v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982).
petition should be dismissed for failure to exhaust state
FOR SERVICE AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
of this report and recommendation shall be served on all
parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects
to any part of this report and recommendation must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served
with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection
must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and
recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to
the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific.
Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and ...