HOWARD v. MOULTON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MARQUIS LAVELLE HOWARD, 	:
:
Petitioner, 	:
:
VS. 	:
: 	NO. 5:25-cv-00490-MTT-CHW
MATTHEW L. MOULTON, 	:
: 	P ROCEEDINGS U NDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241
Respondent. 	: 	BEFORE THE U.S. M AGISTRATE JUDGE
_________________________________
ORDER
Petitioner Marquis Lavelle Howard, a pretrial detainee in the Houston County
Detention Center, filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	ECF No. 1. 	He
has not paid the $5.00 filing fee or moved to proceed in forma pauperis. 	If Petitioner
wishes to proceed with this action, he must either pay the filing fee or request to proceed
in forma pauperis. 	He must also supplement his petition with information regarding any
effort he has made to exhaust available state remedies.
As Petitioner decides whether he wants to proceed with this action, he should be
aware that federal district courts generally must abstain from exercising jurisdiction
“[w]hen there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding.” 	Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v.
Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 	72 (2013) (citing 	Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
Petitioner’s claims must instead be raised in the ongoing state proceeding “unless it plainly
appears that this course would not afford adequate protection.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 45
(internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 5:25-cv-00490-MTT-CHW Document 3 Filed 12/18/25 Page 1 of 3

2
Additionally, Petitioner must fully exhaust all claims before he can seek relief from
the federal district court. 	“Prior to filing a habeas petition in federal court, a petitioner
seeking relief from state custody must exhaust available state remedies.” Santiago-Lugo v.
Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th Cir. 2015) (holding that courts reviewing §2241 petitions
may not “disregard a failure to exhaust and grant relief on the merits if the respondent
properly asserts the defense”). 	Exhaustion requires that, “state prisoners must give the
state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one
complete round of the State’s established appellate review process.” 	O’Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (emphasis added). 	Petitioner complains that the
prosecutor refuses to provide discovery and that the “public defender . . . has ignored [him]
for a year.” 	ECF No. 1 at 3. 	It does not appear, however, that the Petitioner has exhausted
these claims, or any other claim, by proceeding through the appropriate Georgia trial and
appellate courts. 	If Petitioner has not exhausted his available state remedies, his federal
habeas corpus will be summarily dismissed.
Should Petitioner wish to proceed, he is ORDERED to either pay the $5.00 filing
fee or file an application requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis along with a a
current “certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer . . . showing the amount
of money . . . that the [P]etitioner has in any account in the institution.” 	R. 3, Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases. 	Petitioner is also ORDERED to supplement his petition with
information regarding how he has properly exhausted every issue or claim raised in the
petition.
Case 5:25-cv-00490-MTT-CHW Document 3 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 3

3
Petitioner shall have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS to comply with this Order and his
failure to do so will result in the dismissal of this action.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward the appropriate in forma pauperis
forms (showing this civil action number) to Petitioner along with a copy of this Order.
SO ORDERED and DIRECTED, this 18th day of December, 2025.
s/ Charles H. Weigle
Charles H. Weigle
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00490-MTT-CHW Document 3 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 3