Bearden v. King

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
WILLIAM RAYMOND LEE BEARDEN, §
Johnson Cnty. Jail No. 126072554, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ No. 3:25-cv-3554-N-BN
V. §
§
ADAM KING, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner William Raymond Lee Bearden, detained pretrial at the Johnson
County jail, filed a pro se application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. See Dkt. No. 3. And Senior United States District Judge David C. Godbey
referred this matter to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation that the Court should dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice
to Bearden’s right to pursue and exhaust available state remedies.
Discussion
Section 2241 remains “‘available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not
in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.’ For example, prisoners ‘in state
custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting
extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction’ are able
to take advantage of § 2241 relief.” In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir. 2016)
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
(quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Jones v.
Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 475 (2023) (Section 2241 remains available where “a prisoner
challenges ‘the legality of his detention’ without attacking the validity of his sentence.”
(emphasis in original)).
And a state pretrial detainee may “raise constitutional claims in a federal
habeas proceeding under § 2241 if two requirements are satisfied.” Ray v.
Quarterman, No. 3:06-cv-850-L, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2006),
rec. adopted, 2006 WL 2844129 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2006).
Continued detention at the jail would satisfy the first – “in custody” –
requirement.
But Bearden still must exhaust “available state remedies.” Ray, 2006 WL
2842122, at *1 & n.1 (explaining that, “[d]espite the absence of an exhaustion
requirement in the statutory language of § 2241, the courts have developed an
exhaustion doctrine, holding that federal courts should abstain from the exercise of
jurisdiction until the issues are resolved in state court” (citing Dickerson v. Louisiana,
816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S.
484, 489-92 (1973))); see also Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1973) (“With
respect to collateral attack on convictions in state court, the requirement was codified
in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), but the requirement applies to all habeas corpus actions.”).
State remedies are ordinarily not considered exhausted so long as the
petitioner may effectively present his claims to the state courts by a
currently available and adequate procedure. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
This entails submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the
highest available state court for review. Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427,
443 (5th Cir. 1982). A Texas pretrial detainee must present his claim to
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789,
795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir.
1985).
A petitioner may be excused from the exhaustion requirement
only if he can show “exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency.”
Deters, 985 F.2d at 795. Absent exceptional circumstances, a pre-trial
detainee may not adjudicate the merits of his claims before a judgment
of conviction has been entered by a state court. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
Ray, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1; see also Braden, 410 U.S. at 493 (“Derailment of a
pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses
prematurely in federal court” is not allowed.).
Bearden alleges that he exhausted his state remedies by writing a letter to the
district clerk and a lawyer. See Dkt. No. 3 at 2. But exhaustion requires that a
petitioner “present his claims in a procedurally correct manner.” Deters, 985 F.2d at
795.
For a Texas pretrial detainee, the correct state procedure is to file an
application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Article 11.08 of the Texas Code of
Criminal Procedure with the judge of the court in which he is indicted. See TEX. CODE
CRIM. PROC. ANN. ART. 11.08. If the trial court denies habeas relief under Article
11.08, 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)).
Bearden’s filings do not show that he has exhausted his remedies in a
procedurally correct manner. And Bearden has not shown exceptional circumstances
of peculiar urgency.
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
Because Bearden has not made this second required showing of exhaustion of
state remedies, the Court should dismiss this matter without prejudice to allow
Bearden to pursue and exhaust available state remedies.
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice to Petitioner
William Raymond Lee Bearden’s right to pursue and exhaust available state
remedies.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
findings, conclusions, 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). In order 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 findings, conclusions, 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.
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

- 5 -
United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: January 7, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03554-N-BN Document 6 Filed 01/07/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>