Opinion
C/A 5:24-409-JDA-KDW
04-24-2024
Lavern Justin Reed, Petitioner, v. Director Harvey, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West United States Magistrate Judge.
Lavern Justin Reed (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in the Alvin S. Glenn Detention Center. ECF No. 1-2. Petitioner states he is challenging the legality of his imprisonment and the conditions of confinement in which he is being imprisoned. Id. at 2. Petitioner raises four grounds in his § 2241 Petition. Those grounds are:
GROUND ONE: My 5th amendment was violated three times of due process by the government unreasonable & unexplained delay of filing the charges taking thirteen months to have a prelim at which they didnt present exculpatory info. for case with factual errors
Supporting Facts: I requested the prelim that took 13 months the victim signed a affidavit saying “everything was blown out of or prepulsion I want the charges dropped” that the solicitor & my attorney knew about and didnt present the arresting officer also lied on the affidavit and I called police although it says “Verizon pho. female call.”
GROUND TWO: My 4th amendment was violated twice with me being arrested without probable cause twice
Supporting Facts: in case 2304011e17 I was charged with 3rd degr. A&B and child negl. the arresting officer says I neglected my child by assaulting a person while holding the infant with no info. or circu. to prove so in case 2210027629 the arresting officer literally twist the victims words and add in a lie to make the arrest never required evidents
GROUND THREE: My 6th amendment was violated by Charles M. Dolaney ineffectively assisting me
Supporting Facts: he offected me in court saying I kinda did the crime and didnt present evidents I gave him insisting I go to trial without conducting a investigation not putting in my motions or gathering any evidents
GROUND FOUR: My 8th amendment was violated at alvin s. glenn detention center by the correctional officers or staff by cruel & unusual punishments
Supporting Facts: I was being starved not given lunch or dinner and had to pop the sprinkler to get a sargent to come when they had me in lock up for 90 days which in between that time I got a staph infection on my nose that I was not given medical treatment for which is all cruel and unusual punishment plus even more I currently living in a room with no toilet in itECF No. 1-2 at 6-7. (Errors in original). Petitioner seeks monetary damages and requests he be released from jail. Id. at 7.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of this Petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Court,the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978).
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b).
A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
Petitioner's claims concerning his conditions of confinement are not cognizable under a § 2241 Petition. See Rodriguez v. Ratledge, 715 Fed.Appx. 261, 266 (4th Cir. 2017) (explaining conditions-of-confinement claims are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition); Braddy v. Wilson, 580 F. App'x. 172 (4th Cir. 2014) (dismissing habeas petition alleging a condition of confinement claim as improperly brought under § 2241). To the extent Plaintiff seeks to recover monetary damages for the purported violations of his constitutional rights, Plaintiff cannot bring a civil claim for monetary damages in a habeas action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973) (“In the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available federal remedy.”).
As to Petitioner's claims concerning his pending criminal charges and the representation provided by Petitioner's counsel, Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable habeas claim. Although pretrial petitions for habeas corpus are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, see United States v. Tootle, 65 F.3d 381, 383 (4th Cir. 1995), federal habeas relief is only available if exceptional circumstances justify the provision of federal review. Dickerson, 816 F.2d 220, 2274th Cir. 1987). In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances. See also Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The Fourth Circuit has developed the following test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.” Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
Petitioner indicates he is currently detained pending disposition of state criminal charges, satisfying the first part of the test. The second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court has noted that “the States' interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The Fourth Circuit has noted concerning the third criterion of the Younger test “‘that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.'” Gilliam, 75 F.3d at 904 (quoting Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)). Petitioner can pursue his concerns about the legality of his detention, the delay in providing a preliminary hearing, the lack of probable cause supporting his arrests, and the ineffective assistance of his counsel during the disposition of his criminal charges. The undersigned recommends Petitioner's Petition should be summarily dismissed. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
The undersigned recommends the court dismiss the Petition in the above-captioned case without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).