Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-01935/USCOURTS-alnd-1_19-cv-01935-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

DANIEL HARRIS, SR.,

Petitioner,

v.

JIMMY KILGORE,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1935-MHH-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 3, 2020, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he 

recommended that the Court deny Mr. Harris’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 

and dismiss this matter without prejudice to allow Mr. Harris to exhaust his state 

court remedies. (Doc. 10). Mr. Harris has objected to the report, (Doc. 14), but his 

objection does not address the exhaustion issue. Instead, he asks the Court to 

consider the merits of his claims. (Doc. 14). The magistrate judge correctly found 

that Mr. Harris has not unexhausted his constitutional challenge to his state criminal 

conviction because he has not yet presented his constitutional challenge to a state 

court. Consequently, for the reasons the magistrate judge stated in his report, this 

Court may not reach the merits of Mr. Harris’s constitutional challenge to his 

conviction. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999) (“Before a federal 

court may grant habeas relief,” the petitioner “must exhaust his remedies in state 

FILED

 2020 Jan-31 PM 09:13

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 1:19-cv-01935-MHH-JHE Document 15 Filed 01/31/20 Page 1 of 2
2

court.”); O’Sullivan, 528 U.S. at 844 (when an individual asserts that his “continued 

[state] confinement . . . violate[s] federal law, the state courts should have the first 

opportunity to review this claim and provide any necessary relief.”); McNair v. 

Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291, 1302 (11th Cir. 2005) (“Habeas petitioners generally 

cannot raise claims in federal court if those claims were not first exhausted in state 

court.”).

Therefore, having reviewed Mr. Harris’s petition (Doc. 1), the records 

pertaining to his state criminal proceedings (Docs. 7-1 through 7-7), the magistrate 

judge’s report (Doc. 10), and Mr. Harris’s objection (Doc. 14), the Court adopts the 

magistrate judge’s report and accepts his recommendation. By separate order, the 

Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice. 

DONE this 31st day of January, 2020.

 _________________________________

 MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01935-MHH-JHE Document 15 Filed 01/31/20 Page 2 of 2