Wickman v. Navarro County Sheriff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JEREMY VANCE WICKMAN,
#062915,
§
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-284-S (BT)
§
NAVARRO COUNTY SHERIFF, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Jeremy Vance Wickman, a prisoner in the Navarro County Jail, filed a pro
se amended petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging
ongoing criminal proceedings in Navarro County. See generally Amended Habeas
Petition. (ECF No. 5). For the following reasons, the District Judge should dismiss
Wickman’s Amended Habeas Petition without prejudice and close this case.
Background
Wickman was charged in Navarro County with violation of a protective
order, a Class A Misdemeanor. See State of Texas v. Jeremy Wickman, No. CR-
82424 (Navarro Cnty. Court). That case remains pending. See https://portal-
txnavarro.tylertech.cloud/PublicAccess/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=274421 (search
for Wickman’s case) (last visited March 23, 2026).
On March 16, 2026, in response to a Court order, Wickman filed an amended
habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court challenging his ongoing
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

2
criminal proceedings. See generally Amended Habeas Petition. Wickman claims
that the protective order he is accused of violating is void under Texas law, that he
has been in custody since December 2023 without a conviction, and that his
criminal charges were dismissed in 2023. Amended Habeas Petition at 5-6. He
seeks immediate release from confinement. Id. at 7.
Analysis
1. Wickman’s habeas claims are unexhausted.
Challenges raised in a pretrial habeas corpus petition are governed by 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998). A § 2241
habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal if it appears from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Wottlin v. Fleming, 136 F.3d
1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary dismissal of § 2241 petition without
ordering an answer from respondent); see also Rule 4 of the RULES GOVERNING
SECTION 2254 CASES (providing for summary dismissal of a habeas petition).1
Pretrial habeas relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) to a person “‘in
custody regardless of whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of
the present status of the case pending against [him].’” Hartfield v. Osborne, 808
F.3d 1066, 1071 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224
(5th Cir. 1987)). A pretrial detainee, however, must fully exhaust available state
remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. Montano v. Texas, 867 F.3d 540,
1 Rule 1(b) of the RULES GOVERNING SECTION 2254 CASES renders the 2254 Rules
applicable to habeas petitions not covered by § 2254.
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

3
542–43 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225). This entails submitting
the factual and legal basis of any claim to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.
Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted); Curtis v.
Garza Cnty., 2019 WL 5698802, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 8, 2019) (Bryant, J.), rec.
accepted, 2019 WL 5697895 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) (Lynn, J.). A habeas
petitioner must fairly present the substance of his claim to the state courts in a
procedurally proper manner. See, e.g., Kingery v. Dretke, 2006 WL 1441925, at *4
(S.D. Tex. May 23, 2006) (collecting cases). Exceptions exist only “where the
available . . . remedies either are unavailable or wholly inappropriate to the relief
sought, or where the attempt to exhaust such remedies would itself be a patently
futile course of action.” Montano, 867 F.3d at 542-43 (internal quotations and
quoted case omitted).
In the pre-conviction context, applicants accused of misdemeanor charges
may file an application for a writ of habeas corpus under Article 11.09 of the Texas
Code of Criminal Procedure to challenge their pretrial detention. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. art. 11.09; Maldonado v. Valdez, 2009 WL 424570, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2009) (Ramirez, J., rec. accepted by Kinkeade, J.). If the trial court denies
habeas relief, the applicant can take a direct appeal to an intermediate appellate
court and then petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals. See, e.g., Ex parte Twyman, 716 S.W.2d 951, 952 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)
(citing Ex parte Payne, 618 S.W.2d 380, 382 n. 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)).
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

4
Wickman did not properly exhaust his claims in the Texas court system prior
to filing his amended habeas petition. Though he claims that he sought habeas
relief in the trial court and in the Texas Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, there is no
sign from publicly available information that he filed a habeas application under
Article 11.09 with the trial court. And while Wickman tried to file habeas
applications with the Tenth Court of Appeals, these were dismissed for want of
jurisdiction. See In re Wickman, 2025 WL 3171379, at *1, n.1 (Tex. App.—Waco
Nov. 13, 2025, no pet.) (dismissing Wickman’s habeas petition because Wickman
did not allege that he filed a habeas petition in the trial court and Texas
intermediate appellate courts lack original habeas jurisdiction); In re Wickman,
2025 WL 2476376, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 28, 2025, no pet.) (same); In re
Wickman, 2025 WL 2399598, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 18, 2025, no pet.)
(same).
Wickman provides no reason for the Court to excuse the exhaustion
requirement. He fails to show that habeas remedies are unavailable or wholly
inappropriate to the relief sought, or that the attempt to exhaust such remedies
would be futile. See Montano, at 867 F.3d 542-43 (internal quotations and quoted
case omitted).
In sum, Wickman has not properly presented his habeas claims to the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals, so his Amended Habeas Petition is unexhausted and
should be dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Beltran v. Davis, 2019 WL
5069087, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2019) (Toliver, J.), rec. accepted 2019 WL
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

5
5068555 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2019) (dismissing unexhausted habeas petition without
prejudice) (Cummings, J.).
2. Wickman’s Amended Habeas Petition should also be dismissed under the
Younger Abstention Doctrine.
Additionally, under the Younger Abstention Doctrine, a federal court should
abstain from exercising its jurisdiction when to do so would result in the
interference in the course of an ongoing state criminal proceeding, except in the
most extraordinary circumstances and on a clear showing of both great and
immediate harm. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971). “Federal habeas
relief prior to a pending state trial is [no] different from the type of relief sought in
Younger.” Kolski v. Watkins, 544 F.2d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 1977). All prerequisites
to Younger abstention are met, and the Court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction over this case pursuant to the Younger Abstention Doctrine.
Recommendation
The District Judge should dismiss Wickman’s Amended Habeas Petition
(ECF No. 5) without prejudice and close this case.
SO RECOMMENDED.
March 23, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

6
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). 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 report 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).
Case 3:26-cv-00284-S-BT Document 11 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>