UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 01-60474
_______________________
CHARLIE LEE TAYLOR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
C. DAVID TURNER,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
Civil Docket No. 1:01-CV-17-S-D
_________________________________________________________________
April 9, 2002
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
After Charlie Lee Taylor petitioned for a writ of habeas
corpus in the district court, the district court dismissed the
petition without prejudice for the reason that Taylor, who had
omitted to file a petition for discretionary review with the
Mississippi Supreme Court, had not exhausted his state court
remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). Taylor filed a notice of appeal,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
which the district court construed as a request for a certificate
of appealability (COA). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). The district court
granted a COA as to the question whether Taylor had exhausted his
available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3).
Taylor’s discussion of the exhaustion requirement takes
up only about two pages of his brief, and it does not directly
address the question on which the COA was granted: whether Taylor
had exhausted his available state court remedies. Instead, Taylor
contends that he was not required to exhaust those remedies.1
Taylor’s discussion gives no reason to believe that the district
court erred in deciding the issue before us.2
28 U.S.C. § 2254(c) provides that an applicant for a
writ of habeas corpus “shall not be deemed to have exhausted the
remedies available in the courts of the State, within the meaning
of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to
raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” In
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 119 S.Ct. 1728 (1999), the
Supreme Court held that state prisoners must present their claims
to a state supreme court in a petition for discretionary review in
1
Taylor discusses various other issues in his brief, but he does not
request this court to grant a COA as to these issues. Regardless of whether
these issues were raised before the district court in Taylor’s COA application,
this court need not address them. Lackey v. Johnson, 116 F.3d 149, 151-52 (5th
Cir. 1997).
2
Cf. Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 985 F.2d 824, 831 (5th Cir. 1993)
("Questions posed for appellate review but inadequately briefed are considered
abandoned.").
2
order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement of § 2254. Id. at 839-
40, 119 S.Ct. at 1730. “[S]tate 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.” Id. at 845, 119 S.Ct. at 1732. Because Taylor
has the right under Mississippi law to raise on certiorari petition
in the state supreme court the questions presented in his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, he has not exhausted the remedies
available in the Mississippi courts. The district court correctly
held that he did not meet the exhaustion requirement of § 2254
simply by obtaining judgment from the Mississippi Court of Appeals.
Judgment AFFIRMED.
3