Cunningham V State Of Mississippi

        IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          
     FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI                        
                 SOUTHERN DIVISION                                   


DARRELL CUNNINGHAM, # 33855                          PETITIONER           

v.                                   CAUSE NO. 1:25CV118-LG-BWR           

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI                                RESPONDENT            


   MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL                         

BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Petitioner Darrell Cunningham’s Petition [1] 
and supplemental petition [4] for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 
2254.  He is incarcerated with the Mississippi Department of Corrections  
(“MDOC”), and he challenges his convictions and sentences.  The Court has 
considered and liberally construed the pleadings.  As set forth below, this case is 
dismissed without prejudice.                                              
           FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY                              
On May 3, 2024, Cunningham pled guilty and was convicted in the Circuit 
Court of Jackson County, Mississippi for transfer of a controlled substance, three 
counts of possession of a controlled substance, and two counts of felon in possession 
of a weapon.  He was sentenced to a total of twenty years, with eighteen to serve, 
in the custody of the MDOC.  He contends that the indictment was invalid, he was 
illegally searched and seized, his sentence is illegal, his plea was involuntary, and 
“the statute under which the conviction and/or sentence was obtained is   
unconstitutional.”  (Pet. at 7).                                          
On March 23, 2025, Cunningham alleges that he filed a motion for post-
conviction relief with the trial court, which he claims is still pending.  He now 
brings this Petition pursuant to § 2254 and asks this Court to vacate his 

convictions.                                                              
                     DISCUSSION                                      
Before seeking habeas relief with this Court, Cunningham must exhaust his 
available state remedies.  28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A).  This gives “the State the 
‘opportunity to pass upon and correct’ alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal 
rights.”  Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27, 29 (2004) (quoting Duncan v. Henry, 513 
U.S. 364, 365 (1995)).  In order to exhaust his state remedies, he is required to 

present the claim to the highest court in the State.  O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 
U.S. 838, 840 (1999).  The only attempts at exhaustion he describes are with the 
trial court, where he claims a petition is pending.  The petition has not yet been 
presented to the Mississippi Supreme Court.  Therefore, this case is dismissed 
without prejudice for failure to exhaust.                                 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the reasons           

stated above, this case should be and is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT         
PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust.  A separate final judgment shall issue  
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.                           



                           2                                         
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 23th day of July, 2025.             
                      Louis Guirola, Jr.                        
                    s/                                          
                    LOUIS GUIROLA, JR.                          
                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE                




















                      3