Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00296/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00296-0/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 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

Q.D.T., a Minor, *

Petitioner, *

 v. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05-CV-296-T

MICHAEL PROVITT, WARDEN, et al., *

Respondents. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

corpus relief filed by Q.D.T., a minor, by and through his mother, Barbara Turner. In his

petition, Petitioner challenges a final order, judgment, or decree for harassment entered

against him by the Juvenile Court of Montgomery County, Alabama, on March 24/31, 2005.

Upon review of the petition, the court concludes that the instant habeas corpus action

should be dismissed because Petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies available on each

of the claims. The Petitioner filed an appeal from the final order, judgment, or decree of the

juvenile court with the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and application is currently

pending before the state court. (Doc. No. 1, pg. 3.)

DISCUSSION

Under Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982), before a petitioner may file a petition

Case 2:05-cv-00296-MHT-VPM Document 2 Filed 04/06/05 Page 1 of 3
2

seeking habeas relief in federal court, the petitioner must exhaust each claim presented to the

federal court through remedies available in state court. This exhaustion requirement is

satisfied by seeking review of the claim in the highest state court with jurisdiction to consider

the claim. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c). See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U. S. 838 (1999).

The Petitioner has not yet exhausted all of his available state court remedies. His

appeal of his judgment, final order, or decree is currently pending in the Circuit Court for

Montgomery County, Alabama. Thus, the court concludes that this petition for habeas

corpus relief should be dismissed without prejudice in order to allow Petitioner to continue

to pursue his state court remedies. Both comity and judicial efficiency make it appropriate

for this court to insist on complete exhaustion before it addresses the issues raised by

Petitioner. See Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129 (1987). 

CONCLUSION

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

for habeas corpus relief be dismissed without prejudice to afford Petitioner an opportunity

to exhaust all available state court remedies.

 It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before April 18, 2005. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation objected to. Frivolous,

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

Case 2:05-cv-00296-MHT-VPM Document 2 Filed 04/06/05 Page 2 of 3
3

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 recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge's report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report 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 (11

th 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 6th day of April, 2005.

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00296-MHT-VPM Document 2 Filed 04/06/05 Page 3 of 3