1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

HENRY MOORE

VS. 

SHERIFF DENTON COUNTY

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23cv652

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The above-entitled and numbered civil action was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge Aileen Goldman Durrett, who issued a Report and Recommendation (“the Report”)

concluding that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed without prejudice for 

failure to exhaust state habeas corpus remedies. (Dkt. #33). Petitioner filed objections to the 

Report. (Dkt. ##34, 35).

In the objections, Petitioner disputes the Magistrate Judge’s finding that exhaustion is 

required for a pre-trial detainee under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner’s objection is without merit.

Despite the absence of an exhaustion requirement in the statutory language of § 2241(c)(3), case 

law has developed, holding that although § 2241 establishes jurisdiction in the federal courts to 

consider pre-trial habeas corpus petitions, federal courts should abstain from the exercise of that 

jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the 

state court or by other state procedures available to the petitioner. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 

F.2d 220,224 (5th Cir. 1987). This exhaustion doctrine was judicially crafted on federalism 

grounds to protect the state courts’ opportunity to confront and resolve initially any constitutional 

issues arising within their jurisdiction and also to limit federal interference in the state adjudicatory 

process. See id. at 225. 

Alternatively, to excuse his failure to meet any exhaustion requirement, Petitioner asserts 

that he has been denied access to the courts because his court-appointed attorney refuses to present 

Case 4:23-cv-00652-ALM-AGD Document 42 Filed 03/28/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 167
2

or file “motions or writs” on his behalf and the state courts will not consider his pro se pleadings.

These circumstances, however, do not warrant federal court interference in the normal functioning 

of the state’s criminal processes. See Walker v. Anderson, No. CIV.A. 4:04-CV-0245-, 2004 WL 

1454402, at *2 (N.D. Tex. June 28, 2004), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Walker 

v. Dretke, No. 4:04-CV-245-A, 2004 WL 1672220 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2004) (citing Carden v. 

Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980)). Further, even if one or more of the claims presented 

in Petitioner’s federal petition constitute possible defenses to the state charges, a federal court 

should abstain from considering those claims out of deference to the state courts. Texas has 

adequate and effective state procedures for review of Petitioner’s constitutional claims in the event 

he is convicted of the present charges. Federal habeas relief should not be used as a “pretrial motion 

forum for state prisoners.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973).

The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and 

recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Having 

made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court concludes 

that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court hereby 

adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the 

Court. 

It is accordingly ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that all motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00652-ALM-AGD Document 42 Filed 03/28/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 168