Opinion
CIV-23-996-PRW
11-07-2023
NICOIS SMITH, Petitioner, v. LA MDC, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SHON T. ERWIN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Federal prisoner Nicois Smith has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1). United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick has referred this matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). On initial review, the Court should DISMISS the Petition.
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to “summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading,” Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See R. 4, R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.
The district court may apply any or all” of the Rules governing § 2254 cases to a habeas petition brought under § 2241. R. 1(b), R. Governing § 2254 Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.
II. BACKGROUND/CURRENT HABEAS PETITION
On August 16, 2023, the United States of America filed a sealed indictment against Mr. Smith in criminal Case No. 23-CR-342-HE. See USA v. Smith, et al., Case No. 23-CR-342-HE (W.D. Okla. Aug. 16, 2023). On August 22, 2023, Mr. Smith was arraigned and entered a plea of not guilty in that case. See id., ECF No. 13. On August 24, 2023, Mr. Smith was ordered detained pending trial in the criminal case. See id., ECF No. 21. On August 25, 2023, U.S. Magistrate Judge Amanda Maxfield Green granted Mr. Smith's motion for an Order to determine competency and on August 28, 2023, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ordered a psychiatric examination of Mr. Smith and struck the trial that had been set for October of 2023 pending completion of the evaluation. See id., at ECF Nos. 24 & 26.
Mr. Smith is currently detained at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Detention Center (LA MDC) in Los Angeles, CA, where he states he has been since September 15, 2023. See ECF No. 1, Smith v. LAMDC, Case No. 23-CIV-996-PRW (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2023). On November 3, 2023, Mr. Smith filed a habeas petition in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. Although the pleading is rambling and at times incoherent, the gist of Mr. Smith's argument appears to concern his psychiatric examination which had been ordered by Judge Heaton in the criminal case. According to Mr. Smith, the “LA MDC has been adding automatic extensions overriding court ordered recommendations.” (ECF No. 1:1). Petitioner further states that his evaluation has been extended, even though “there are several places that had the ability to accomplish the recommendation of the court within 500 miles of Nicois Smith Quote Mental Health Evaluation.” (ECF No. 1:1). Mr. Smith characterizes the delay as cruel and unusual punishment and medical malpractice. (ECF No. 1:1). In connection with his claim, Mr. Smith also discusses what he characterizes as “vendettas and motives” from prior cases originating in Oklahoma City which he believes are somehow connected to the current delay in obtaining his mental health evaluation at the LA MDC. See ECF No. 1:2.
III. DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION
To the extent Mr. Smith is challenging his pretrial proceedings and detention, he must do so within his federal criminal case-Case No. 23-CR-342-HE. See 18 U.S.C. § 3145. This tenet is based on the principle that a federal pretrial detainee usually must exhaust other available remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief under § 2241. See Chandler v. Prat, 96 Fed.Appx. 661, 662 (10th Cir. 2004) (rejecting the petitioner's habeas claim challenging a violation of his speedy trial rights where he could have filed a motion in his pending criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2)); see also Thompson v. Robinson, 565 Fed.Appx. 738, 739 (10th Cir. 2014) (holding that claims relating to pre-trial detainee's pending federal criminal case must be exhausted in the criminal action, or on appeal after conviction, and not in a habeas petition) (citing Whitmer v. Lev, 276 Fed.Appx. 217, 218 (3d Cir. 2008)); Hall v. Prat, 97 Fed.Appx. 246 (10th Cir. 2004) (dismissing § 2241 petition filed by federal pre-trial detainee alleging violation of the Speedy Trial Act, his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, and his Fifth Amendment due process rights because he failed to exhaust available remedies in the criminal action); Gess v. USM., No. 20-cv-01790-PAB-STV, 2020 WL 8838280, at *13 n.16 (D. Colo. Dec. 10, 2020) ("The Tenth Circuit has held that a pretrial detainee may not seek release from pretrial detention through a habeas petition based upon constitutional violations that could be or already have been raised in the detainee's criminal case.” (citing Medina v. Choat, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 2017)); Alvarez-Caceres v. Klin, No. CV-19-05414-PHX-MTL (MTM), 2020 WL 3064461, at *2 (D. Ariz. June 9, 2020) ("Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for Petitioner's pretrial challenges to his federal criminal proceedings.”).
Additionally, to the extent Mr. Smith is challenging the conditions of his confinement at the LA MDC, he "must do so through a civil rights action.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012); see also Standifer v. Ledezma, 653 F.3d 1276, 1280 (10th Cir. 2011) ("It is well-settled law that prisoners who wish to challenge only the conditions of their confinement ... must do so through civil rights lawsuits ... not through federal habeas proceedings.”). Furthermore, if the claims concern only actions taken by the LA MDC and/or officials there, with no connection to the Western District of Oklahoma, venue would not be proper in this Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391; Azubuko v. Irish, 442 Fed.Appx. 374, 376 (10th Cir. 2011) (affirming this Court's dismissal of 1983 complaint for improper venue when the defendants were all located in Massachusetts, and plaintiff failed to alleged any facts connecting the dispute to the Western District of Oklahoma). Based on the forgoing, the Court should dismiss the habeas petition.
IV. RECOMMENDATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
It is recommended that the Court dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by November 27, 2023, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
V. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.