Ellis v. Crockett

• Decision Date: 09 September 2014
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-592-CWR-FKB
• Parties: TROY VANCURTIS ELLIS, #162244 PETITIONER v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and JOHNNY CROCKETT, Warden RESPONDENTS
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi

TROY VANCURTIS ELLIS, #162244 PETITIONER
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI and JOHNNY CROCKETT, Warden RESPONDENTS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-cv-592-CWR-FKB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

September 9, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of dismissal. Petitioner Troy Vancurtis Ellis, an inmate at the South Mississippi Correctional Institution, Leakesville, Mississippi, files this Petition [1] for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Having considered the Petition [1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) & (c), Petitioner's Response [5] and applicable case law, the Court finds that Petitioner's claims fail to warrant federal habeas corpus relief because Petitioner has not exhausted his state court remedies.

Petitioner states that he was convicted in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi, for two counts of armed robbery, armed carjacking and kidnaping and was sentenced on July 31, 2013, to serve a 25-year prison sentence. Pet. [1] at 1. The grounds for habeas relief relate to what the State could prove in their case against Petitioner, Petitioner's plea agreement, and Petitioner's public defender failing to object to the Assistant District Attorney saying that Petitioner "placed a gun to the victim's . . . head." Id. at 5-13.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1), "a defendant must exhaust all claims in state court prior to requesting federal collateral relief." Smith v. Quarterman, 515 F.3d 392, 400 (5th Cir. 2008) (citing Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248, 263 (5th Cir. 2001)). A petitioner must exhaust his claims through the state courts either by direct appeal or by post-conviction proceedings. See Orman v.

Page 2

Cain, 228 F.3d 616, 619-20 & n.6 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement, the claim must have been fairly presented to the highest state court. Morris v. Dretke, 379 F.3d 199, 204 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Mercadel v. Cain, 179 F.3d 271, 275 (5th Cir. 1999)). As a general matter, a habeas petition will be dismissed when the petitioner has not exhausted his claims in state court. See Smith, 515 F.3d at 400 (citing 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(1)(A)); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519-20 (1982)).

According to Petitioner, he filed a "motion for relief under the Mississippi Post-Conviction Collateral Relief Act" in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi. Pet's Resp. [5] at 2. Petitioner indicates in his Response [5] that his motion for post-conviction relief is presently pending in the state trial court. As such, Petitioner has not given the "state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established...