Johnson v. TDCJ Parole Board

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON, 	§
ID # 065808, 	§
Petitioner, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3511-S-BW
§
TDCJ PAROLE BOARD, 	§
Respondent. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
State Custody, received on December 23, 2025. (Dkt. No. 2.) Based on the relevant
filings and applicable law, the Court should DISMISS the petition without prejudice
for failure to exhaust state remedies.
I. BACKGROUND
Richard James Johnson, currently in custody on pending state charges at the
Navarro County Jail in Corsicana, Texas, brings this habeas action under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 challenging an April 2025 parole revocation on a 2000 conviction out of the
159th Judicial District Court of Angelina County, Texas. (See id. at 2, 5.) The
petition names “TDCJ Parole Board” as the respondent. (Id. at 1.)
Johnson alleges the following grounds for relief in his petition:
(1) Due process violation parole revocation hearing;
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for
full case management.
Case 3:25-cv-03511-S-BW Document 6 Filed 02/27/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
(2) Violation of equal rights/arb[]itrary and capricious; and
(3) Parole initiated revocation proceedings on a charge that is not a crime.
(Id. at 6-7 (capitalization altered).) He asks the Court to “dismiss revocation
proceeding and lift parole hold.” (Id. at 7 (capitalization altered).)
II. EXHAUSTION
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”)
provides that a petitioner must fully exhaust state remedies before seeking federal
habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Exhaustion for purposes of § 2254 requires
that a petitioner “present his claims in a procedurally correct manner” to “the highest
court of his state.” Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993). In Texas, a
prisoner must present his claims to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”).
Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985).
A federal district court may raise the lack of exhaustion sua sponte. Shute v.
State of Tex., 117 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 1997). It may dismiss without prejudice a
federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus that contains unexhausted grounds for
relief. See, e.g., Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). As a matter of comity, the
state courts must be given a fair opportunity to hear and consider the claims raised by
a petitioner before those claims are heard in federal court. See Picard v. Connor, 404
U.S. 270, 275 (1971).
Here, Johnson specifically indicates that his parole was revoked on April 14,
2025 and that he has not filed any petitions, applications, or motions challenging his
Case 3:25-cv-03511-S-BW Document 6 Filed 02/27/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
parole revocation. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 5.) As such, Johnson has not fairly presented
his claims challenging his alleged April 2025 parole revocation to the TCCA in a
procedurally correct manner, and the highest court of the state has not had an
opportunity to review them. A ruling from the federal court at this juncture would
preempt the state court from performing its proper function. See Rose, 455 U.S. at
518 (holding that the exhaustion requirement is “designed to protect the state courts’
role in the enforcement of federal law and prevent disruption of state judicial
proceedings.”).
Johnson is therefore not entitled to habeas relief on his claims challenging his
April 2025 parole revocation based on his failure to exhaust state remedies.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DISMISS the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a
Person in State Custody, received on December 23, 2025 (Dkt. No. 2), without
prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 27, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03511-S-BW Document 6 Filed 02/27/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate 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 Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03511-S-BW Document 6 Filed 02/27/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>