IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

RONNIE TURNER, §

Petitioner, § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO.4:05-CV-620-Y

 §

DEE ANDERSON, Sheriff, §

Tarrant County, Texas, §

Respondent. § 

ORDER ADOPTING, AS MODIFIED,

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Before the Court is the petition for writ of habeas corpus

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 of petitioner Ronnie Turner, along with the

December 16, 2005, findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge gave the

parties until January 6 to file written objections to the findings,

conclusions, and recommendation. The Court extended that deadline

until January 27. As of the date of this order, no written

objections have been filed.

 The Court has reviewed the pleadings and the record in this

case, and has reviewed for clear error the proposed findings,

conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate

Judge filed on December 16, 2005. The magistrate judge recommended

the petition be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. The Court

concludes that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be

dismissed on that basis, although for different reasons than set

forth in the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions:

If this petition were considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

a statutory mandate regarding the exhaustion of all

available state court remedies would apply. See 28 U.S.C.

§ § 2254(b)(1)( A) and (c). Despite the absence of such

a statutory requirement for petitions filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 by persons in custody pending state

criminal proceedings, the courts have judicially crafted

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00620-Y Document 15 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 67
1Motes v. Cornyn, No.Civ.A.4:02-CV-790-Y, 2002 WL 31495972, at *2 (N.D.Tex.

Nov. 5, 2002).

2

an exhaustion doctrine, holding that federal courts

should abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction until

the issues are resolved in state court, either by trial

on the merits or by other state procedures available to

the petitioner. See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225 (citations

omitted); see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court

of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973); Brown v.

Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1284 (5th Cir.1976); and Clark v.

Anderson, No.4:01-CV-723-Y, 2001 WL 1631538 at *3

(N.D.Tex. Dec. 14, 2001). The exhaustion doctrine

applicable to § 2241(d)(3) was judicially crafted on

federalism grounds to protect the state courts' opportunity to resolve initially any constitutional issues

arising within their jurisdictions as well as to limit

federal interference in the state adjudicatory process.

See Dickerson, 816 F.3d at 225; Clark, 2001 WL 1631538 at

*3; see generally Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518

(exhaustion requirement is "designed to protect the state

courts' role in the enforcement of federal law and

prevent disruption of state judicial proceedings"). In

Braden, the United States Supreme Court reiterated that

absent "special circumstances," a pretrial detainee may

not adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a

state criminal charge before a judgment of conviction has

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

The "derailing of a pending state proceeding by an

attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely

in federal court" is not allowed. Braden, 410 U.S. at

493.1

 Therefore, the findings, conclusions and recommendation of

the magistrate judge are ADOPTED, as modified to the extent that

the applicable exhaustion requirement is that judicially crafted

for petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 by persons in custody

pending state criminal proceedings. 

Anderson’s motion to dismiss [docket no. 9] is GRANTED.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00620-Y Document 15 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 68
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS -- Page 2

dwk-mu\k\d\means\Raber.206 3

Ronnie Turner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of exhaustion.

SIGNED January 31, 2006. 

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00620-Y Document 15 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 69