IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

JAMES DRAUCKER, § 

#00146717, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-2359-M-BN 

§ 

ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT § 

HOUSE, ET AL., § 

§ 

Defendants. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff James Draucker, an inmate at the Rockwall County jail, initially filed 

a pro se complaint against two judges in that county, a state appellate court, and 

officials at the jail, claiming that he is wrongfully incarcerated and requesting his 

immediate release plus monetary damages. See Dkt. No. 3. Draucker also moved for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) and for court-appointed counsel. See Dkt. 

Nos. 4, 5. 

United States District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn referred Draucker’s civil 

complaint to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial 

management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

The Court granted Draucker leave to proceed IFP under the Prison Litigation 

Reform Act (the PLRA). See Dkt. No. 6. And, under the PLRA, the undersigned has 

entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the Court should 

deny Dru motion to appoint counsel, dismiss this case with prejudice under 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:22-cv-02359-M-BN Document 21 Filed 12/08/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 110
- 2 - 

§ 1915A, and count this dismissal as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) [Dkt. No. 7] 

(the Civil FCR). 

Draucker has now filed, in this action, a Petition for Injunction to Grant 

Plaintiffs Release from Confinement [Dkt. No. 20] (the Petition). 

And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendation that the Court should deny the Petition without prejudice to 

Draucker’s right to exhaust available state remedies. 

Discussion

Draucker initiated this action through a civil complaint seeking both damages 

and his release. As the Civil FCR sets out, the Court may not consider both types of 

relief in the same case, and, where both are sought – and the claims can be separated 

– the Court should consider the damages claim. See Serio v. Members of La. St. Bd. 

of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1987) (discussing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 

U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974)). 

Now, through the Petition, Draucker seeks his release from custody. Related 

to this request, the Dallas Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court’s denial of 

Draucker’s state habeas petition, agreeing with the trial court that the issuance of a 

valid Governor’s Warrant moots his complaints concerning confinement, see Ex parte 

Draucker, No. 05-22-00615-CR, 2022 WL 6935605 (Tex. App. – Dallas Oct. 12, 2022), 

and it appears that, earlier this month, Draucker filed a petition for discretionary 

review (PDR) in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the CCA), see Ex parte 

Draucker, PD-0686-22 (Tex. Crim. App.) (filed Dec. 7, 2022). 

Case 3:22-cv-02359-M-BN Document 21 Filed 12/08/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 111
- 3 - 

A person “‘who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment’” – such as 

one who is in “‘pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of 

custody that are possible without a conviction’” – may “take advantage of [28 U.S.C.] 

§ 2241 relief.” In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added; 

quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

But such a person may only “raise constitutional claims in a federal habeas 

proceeding under § 2241 if two requirements are satisfied.” Ray v. Quarterman, No. 

3:06-cv-850-L, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2006), rec. adopted, 2006 

WL 2844129 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2006). 

Draucker’s detention at the jail satisfies the first, “in custody” requirement. 

But he must still exhaust “available state remedies.” Ray, 2006 WL 2842122, 

at *1 & n.1 (explaining that, “[d]espite the absence of an exhaustion requirement in 

the statutory language of § 2241, the courts have developed an exhaustion doctrine, 

holding that federal courts should abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction until the 

issues are resolved in state court”; citing Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 

(5th Cir. 1987); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 

(1973)); see also Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1973) (“With respect to 

collateral attack on convictions in state court, the requirement was codified in 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(b), but the requirement applies to all habeas corpus actions.”). 

These exhaustion requirements apply to those in custody awaiting extradition. 

See, e.g., Bales v. State of Tex., 324 F. Supp. 127, 128 (S.D. Tex. 1970). 

State remedies are ordinarily not considered exhausted so long as the 

petitioner may effectively present his claims to the state courts by a 

Case 3:22-cv-02359-M-BN Document 21 Filed 12/08/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 112
- 4 - 

currently available and adequate procedure. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. 

This entails submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the 

highest available state court for review. Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 

443 (5th Cir. 1982). A Texas pretrial detainee must present his claim to 

the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 

795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 

1985). 

A petitioner may be excused from the exhaustion requirement 

only if he can show “exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency.” 

Deters, 985 F.2d at 795. Absent exceptional circumstances, a pre-trial 

detainee may not adjudicate the merits of his claims before a judgment 

of conviction has been entered by a state court. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. 

Ray, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1; see also Braden, 410 U.S. at 493 (“Derailment of a 

pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses 

prematurely in federal court” is not allowed.). 

Draucker has not made this showing, as the record reflects that the CCA has 

not ruled on his pending PDR. The Court should therefore dismiss the Petition 

without prejudice to allow Draucker to exhaust available state remedies. 

Recommendation

The Court should dismiss the Petition for Injunction to Grant Plaintiffs 

Release from Confinement [Dkt. No. 20] without prejudice to James Draucker’s right 

to exhaust available state remedies and should, for statistical purposes, direct the 

Clerk to open a new 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action (NOS 530) directly assigned to 

Judge Lynn and the undersigned and to close the same on any order accepting or 

adopting these findings, conclusions, and recommendation. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

Case 3:22-cv-02359-M-BN Document 21 Filed 12/08/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 113
- 5 - 

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 findings, conclusions, 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 legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: December 8, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 3:22-cv-02359-M-BN Document 21 Filed 12/08/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 114