Daniel Hansen v. Rick Thaler, Director , 508 F. App'x 322 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 12-20343       Document: 00512117956         Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/18/2013
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    January 18, 2013
    No. 12-20343
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    DANIEL SERGIO HANSEN,
    Petitioner-Appellant
    v.
    RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
    CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
    Respondent-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:12-CV-1056
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Daniel Sergio Hansen, Texas prisoner # 1469241, moves for a certificate
    of appealability (COA) and to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the
    dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies of his
    28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for possession with intent
    to deliver cocaine. Hansen argues that the district court failed to consider his
    argument that the exhaustion requirement should have been excused in light of
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
    Case: 12-20343     Document: 00512117956      Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/18/2013
    No. 12-20343
    the state court’s failure to act on his pending state habeas application for more
    than two years. He contends that the excessive delay has caused an absence of
    State corrective processes resulting in the denial of his due process rights.
    A federal court may not grant habeas relief unless the petitioner “has
    exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State.” § 2254(b)(1)(A).
    The exhaustion requirement is excused “only in those rare cases where
    exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency mandate federal court
    interference.” Deters v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 789
    , 795 (5th Cir. 1993) (internal
    quotation marks and citation omitted). “Exceptional circumstances of peculiar
    urgency” exist, and the exhaustion doctrine will not be applied, “when the state
    system inordinately and unjustifiably delays review of a petitioner’s claims so
    as to impinge upon his due process rights.” Id. Noncompliance with the
    exhaustion doctrine is excused only if the inordinate delay is wholly and
    completely the fault of the State; the petitioner’s hands must be clean. Id. at
    796. In determining whether the delay is violative of due process, the following
    factors are examined: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay;
    (3) the petitioner’s assertion of his right; and (4) the prejudice to the petitioner
    on account of the delay. Barker v. Wingo, 
    407 U.S. 514
    , 530 (1972).
    Hansen’s state habeas application has been pending for over two years,
    which exceeds the range we have previously considered excessive. See Breazeale
    v. Bradley, 
    582 F.2d 5
    , 6 (5th Cir. 1978); St. Jules v. Beto, 
    462 F.2d 1365
    , 1366
    (5th Cir. 1972). Because the district court dismissed Hansen’s petition for
    failure to exhaust state remedies before service on the Respondent, there has
    been no opportunity for factual development to determine whether Hansen
    contributed to the delay or whether the delay is justifiable. Consequently, the
    district court’s procedural determination is debatable, and Hansen’s requests for
    a COA and to proceed IFP are granted. See Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Houser v. Dretke, 
    395 F.3d 560
    , 562 (5th Cir. 2004).
    2
    Case: 12-20343    Document: 00512117956      Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/18/2013
    No. 12-20343
    The judgment dismissing Hansen’s petition is vacated and remanded for
    further factual development regarding whether Hansen contributed to the delay
    and whether the delay in considering his state habeas application is justifiable.
    See Dixon v. Florida, 
    388 F.2d 424
    , 425-26 (5th Cir. 1968). If Hansen did not
    contribute to the delay, and the delay is not justifiable, the district court is
    instructed to rule on the merits of the federal petition. See id.
    COA and IFP GRANTED; VACATED AND REMANDED.
    3