Opinion
2:21-cv-12499
11-15-2021
BENJAMIN HILL, Petitioner, v. TROY BEVIER, Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Benjamin Hill-a pretrial detainee at the Lenawee County Jail in Southern Michigan-filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF 1. Because of the procedural posture of the state criminal proceedings, the Court will dismiss the petition. Federal habeas relief is premature.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is charged in state court with three counts of fourth degree criminal sexual conduct. Id. at 2. Petitioner submitted a document along with the petition that appears to show that Petitioner pleaded guilty to at least some of the counts during Petitioner's June 2, 2021 arraignment. Id. But the document listed Petitioner's next court date as November 17, 2021 and that the purposes of the court date are "pre-trial" matters. Id. The Court independently confirmed that Petitioner is scheduled to have two "pretrial hearing[s]" on November 17, 2021 in Lenawee County Circuit 1 Court and that the hearings are for the cases listed on the document that Petitioner submitted. See Exhibit 1; ECF 1, PgID 2. Based on the document and the state court's docket, see Exhibit 1; ECF 1, PgID 2, Petitioner is either a pretrial detainee who has not been convicted or an inmate who has pleaded guilty to and is awaiting sentencing on at least some of the charged offenses.
One page of the petition states that Petitioner believes a "malicious prosecution" violated Petitioner's due process and equal protection rights and another discusses a brief recitation of case law about deficient warrants. Id. at 1, 4. Petitioner did not explain whether there was an arrest or search warrant issued in the state court case or what was malicious about the prosecution that violated due process or equal protection principles. See generally id.
Other than the document and pages referenced above, Plaintiff appears to have attached several documents unrelated to the actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See generally ECF 1. For example, one document is a Freedom of Information Act request sent to the Lenawee County Jail in October 2021, id. at 3, and another relates to a civil lawsuit Petitioner filed in state court associated with injuries suffered while confined in the Lenawee County Jail, id. at 5. Neither document appears related to Petitioner's state court criminal proceeding, and Petitioner does not appear to reassert the civil claims from the state court lawsuit in federal court through the petition.
The last two documents are letters from Petitioner to the Lenawee County Prosecutor. Id. at 6-8. The first letter detailed an alleged incident of sexual 2 harassment against Petitioner that apparently resulted in Petitioner's arrest because Petitioner connected the incident to the "malicious prosecution." Id. at 6-7. Petitioner did not provide a reason for the arrest. See generally id. The second letter discussed an incident in which Petitioner was allegedly assaulted by a woman, with a request that an investigation be launched against the woman. Id. at 8.
LEGAL STANDARD
If a habeas petitioner has not yet been convicted, Section 2241 is the proper vehicle for challenging the state court proceedings because the Sixth Circuit has "long recognized that pretrial detainees pursue habeas relief [] under § 2241." Phillips v. Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2012). Relief can only be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when the petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" rather than "in custody pursuant to an indictment." Id. (emphasis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). If a petitioner has been convicted in a state court but files for habeas relief under § 2241, courts must still apply the restrictions on habeas relief associated with § 2254. Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 337-38 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[T]here is really only a single 'gate' to federal habeas relief from state custody-through the general jurisdictional grant in § 2241-although all petitions seeking relief from state court convictions are more specifically filed 'under section 2254' as well, and are subject to its restrictions, as well as those of § 2244(b).") (cleaned up). Because Petitioner might be either a pretrial detainee or convicted and awaiting sentencing, the Court will analyze the petition as if both circumstances exist. 3
First, the Court turns to the law surrounding pretrial habeas petitions challenging state criminal proceedings. In general, under the abstention doctrine federal courts should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings "except under extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); see also In re Justices of Sup. Ct. Dept. of Mass. Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11, 17-18 (1st Cir. 2000) (discussing approvingly the application of abstention principles to pretrial habeas relief from a state proceeding). Courts will apply the abstention doctrine when there is "an ongoing state judicial proceeding; . . . the proceeding[] implicate[s] important state interests; and . . . there [is] an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding[] to raise constitutional challenges." Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Federal courts routinely deny pretrial requests for habeas relief from state court proceedings unless there "is a claim that [the] state prosecution will violate the Double Jeopardy Clause" or there are claims related to the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Carman v. Pinkney, No. 1:19 CV 2101, 2020 WL 224572, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2020) (Gaughan, C.J.).
Second, the Court turns to the law surrounding habeas petitions submitted by convicted petitioners when the state court has yet to impose a sentence. Federal courts must not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "unless the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies, there is an absence of available state corrective process, or circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the petitioner's rights." Turner v. Bagley, 401 F.3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2005) 4 (citing § 2254 (b) and (c)). A petitioner confined pursuant to a Michigan conviction must raise each issue in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court before seeking federal habeas corpus relief in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Winegar v. Corr. Dep't, 435 F.Supp. 285, 289 (W.D. Mich. 1977)). Petitions are routinely dismissed on exhaustion grounds when a petitioner is awaiting sentencing after conviction. See Knox v. State of Wyo., 959 F.2d 866, 868 (10th Cir. 1992); Pizetzky v. Att'y Gen., 329 F.Supp.2d 371, 373 (E.D.N.Y. 2004); Allen v. Att'y Gen. of the State of Me., 80 F.3d 569, 572 (1st Cir. 1996) ("[A] state criminal case is ripe for the ministrations of a federal habeas court only after completion of the state proceedings," which means "after the defendant has been tried, convicted, sentenced, and has pursued available direct appeals."). The petitioner has the burden of proving exhaustion of state court remedies. See Rust v. Zent, 17 F.3d 155, 160 (6th Cir. 1994). Finally, if a petitioner is plainly not entitled to relief, federal courts must dismiss the petition. Rule Four of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
DISCUSSION
The Court will deny the petition for a writ of habeas corpus because regardless of whether Petitioner is a pretrial detainee yet to be convicted or a convicted inmate awaiting sentencing Petitioner is plainly not entitled to relief. First, if Petitioner is a pretrial detainee yet to be convicted, Petitioner did not allege the proceeding against him violates double jeopardy and did not make any claims related to speedy trial 5 rights. See generally ECF 1. Because Petitioner did not allege claims related to double jeopardy or speedy trial rights, the abstention doctrine applies if Petitioner is a pretrial detainee yet to be convicted. Carman, 2020 WL 224572, at *3. Furthermore, Petitioner would still have an opportunity to raise any constitutional issue related to a malicious prosecution in state court before or during trial, so there is an adequate opportunity for the state court to prevent an "irreparable loss" resulting from the alleged malicious prosecution against Petitioner. Thus, irrespective of courts in the Sixth Circuit having only found double jeopardy and speedy trial claims to clear the abstention doctrine hurdle, abstention applies here given the adequate opportunity for the state court to prevent any "irreparable loss." See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432; Younger, 401 U.S. at 45.
Second, if Petitioner is a convicted inmate awaiting sentencing, Petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies. Given that Petitioner still has pretrial hearings for the cases challenged in the petition, see Exhibit 1; ECF 1, PgID 2, Petitioner could not yet have been sentenced for any convictions related to the cases. Petitioner, therefore, could not have exhausted state court remedies. See Knox, 959 F.2d at 868; Pizetzky, 329 F.Supp.2d at 373.
Because either the abstention doctrine applies or Petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies necessitating dismissal under Rule Four of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Court will dismiss the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 6
CONCLUSION
To appeal the Court's decision, Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability. See Greene v. Tennessee Dep't of Corrections, 265 F.3d 369, 372 (6th Cir. 2001); Rule Eleven of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. To obtain a certificate of appealability, Petitioner must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, Petitioner must show "that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (cleaned up). Here, the Court will deny a certificate of appealability because "a plain procedural bar is present and the [] [C]ourt is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case," so "a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further." Id. at 484.
The Court will also deny Petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis because an appeal cannot be taken in good faith. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).
ORDER
WHEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 7
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is DENIED in forma pauperis status on appeal.
SO ORDERED. 8
EXHIBIT 1
(Exhibit 1 Omitted) 9