Marquis Lavelle Howard v. Matthew L. Moulton

• Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
• Decided: December 18, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00490
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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, : : PROCEEDINGS UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Respondent. : BEFORE THE U.S. MAGISTRATE 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). 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. 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