Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00870/USCOURTS-almd-1_09-cv-00870-0/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)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CRAIG SKIPPER #146391, )

)

 Petitioner, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-870-TMH

)

GARY HETZEL, et al., )

)

 Respondents. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This cause is before the court on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus

relief filed by Craig Skipper [“Skipper”], a state inmate, on June 4, 2009. In this petition,

Skipper challenges a conviction for third degree robbery imposed upon him by the Circuit

Court of Houston County, Alabama. The respondents filed an answer in which they assert

that the instant habeas petition should be dismissed because Skipper has failed to exhaust

state remedies with respect to each of the claims now pending before this court.

Specifically, the respondents argue that any claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on

which Skipper seeks relief has not been exhausted in the state courts as the petitioner may

present these claims in a post-conviction petition filed pursuant to Rule 32 of the Alabama

Rules of Criminal Procedure. It is likewise clear to this court that to the extent Skipper

seeks to challenge his competency to stand trial, i.e., a substantive competency claim, he

has likewise failed to exhaust state remedies because such a claim is jurisdictional and

would not be precluded from review in a Rule 32 proceeding by any state procedural rule.

Case 1:09-cv-00870-TMH-TFM Document 17 Filed 10/28/09 Page 1 of 4
2

Medina v. Singletary, 59 F.3d 1095, 1111 (11 Cir.), cert. denied 517 U.S. 1247, 116 S.Ct. th

2505 (1996) (Although petitioner did not raise, on direct appeal or in his initial Rule 32

petition, “his substantive competency claim that he was tried while incompetent ... [this]

substantive claim ... is not subject to procedural default and must be considered on the

merits.”); Glass v. State, 912 So.2d 285, 288 (Ala.Cr.App. 2004) (“To the extent

[petitioner] raises a substantive due-process claim - that he was convicted while mentally

incompetent to stand trial - the petition is not subject to procedural bars.”). 

Upon review of the respondents’ answer, the court entered an order affording

Skipper an opportunity to demonstrate why his petition should not be dismissed for failure

to exhaust state remedies. Order of October 8, 2009 - Court Doc. No. 15. In response to

this order, Skipper concedes his failure to exhaust state remedies prior to filing his federal

habeas petition and seeks dismissal of this case without prejudice “so that [he] may exhaust

his available state court remedies as to each claim raised in the present petition for writ of

habeas corpus.” Petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss - Court Doc. No. 16 at 1-2. 

DISCUSSION

The law directs that a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by “a person in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the

applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the [convicting] State ...”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(1)(A). “An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the

remedies available in the courts of the State ... if he has the right under the law of the State

Case 1:09-cv-00870-TMH-TFM Document 17 Filed 10/28/09 Page 2 of 4
3

to raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(c). It is

undisputed that Skipper has not yet exhausted his available state court remedies with

respect to each of the claims presented in the instant petition for habeas corpus relief. This

court does not deem it appropriate to rule on the merits of these claims without first

requiring that the petitioner exhaust available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(1)(b)(2).

Moreover, it does not appear that a stay of this case is warranted pending the outcome of

the state court collateral proceeding as there is nothing before this court which indicates

the requisite “good cause for the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims first in state

court.” Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277, 125 S.Ct. 1528, 1535 (2005). 

In light of the foregoing, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the petition for habeas

corpus relief should be dismissed without prejudice so that Skipper can pursue those state

court remedies available to him. 

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. The petitioner’s motion to dismiss be GRANTED.

2. The petition for habeas corpus relief be DENIED.

3. The petition be DISMISSED without prejudice to afford the petitioner an

opportunity to exhaust all available state court remedies. It is further 

ORDERED that on or before November 10, 2009 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Case 1:09-cv-00870-TMH-TFM Document 17 Filed 10/28/09 Page 3 of 4
4

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not

appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by

the District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

 attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981,

en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit

handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Done this 28th day of October, 2009.

/s/ Terry F. Moorer 

TERRY F. MOORER 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00870-TMH-TFM Document 17 Filed 10/28/09 Page 4 of 4