Johnson v. Morgan et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 6/24/13. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD G. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 13-578-LPS

v.

PHIL MORGAN, Warden, and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
In August 2012, Petitioner Ronald G. Johnson ("Petitioner") was indicted on the charge

of possession of a controlled substance. He was released on unsecured bail. Petitioner's trial
was scheduled for March 5, 2013, but he failed to appear and the Superior Court issued a capias
for his arrest. The capias was returned the same day and Petitioner has been held in lieu of
$20,000 cash bail since that time. See In the Matter of the Petition of Ronald G. Johnson for a

Writ of Mandamus, No. 259, 2013, Holland, J., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013); In the Matter
of the Petition of Ronald G. Johnson for a Writ of Mandamus, No. 239, 2013, Holland, .J., Order
at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013); In the Matter of the Petition of Ronald G. Johnson for a Writ of

Prohibition, No. 240, 2013, Holland, J., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013). On April4, 2013,
Petitioner's counsel in his state criminal proceeding filed a motion for a psychiatric and/or
psychological evaluation to determine whether Petitioner is competent to stand trial. See In the

Matter of the Petition of Ronald G. Johnson for a Writ of Prohibition, No. 240, 2013, Holland,

J., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013).
Presently pending before the Court is Petitioner's "Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241," in which Petitioner contends
there is no reason I should be in jail. I went to two mandatory
trials and the officer did not show. I rejected the pleas five times,
at least three or four in the record. I did not have any drugs, if I did
they would have had a trial by now. They're hiding the discovery
information in violation of my rights.
(D.I. 2 at 5) Petitioner asserts two specific grounds for federal habeas relief: (1) he has been
falsely accused of not appearing for trial and threatened with receiving a high bail and remaining
incarcerated if he does not plead guilty to a more serious offense than that to which he pled guilty
in the past; and (2) his right to effective assistance of counsel and his right to self-representation
have been violated during this pre-trial stage. (D.I. 2 at 3)

Petitioner asks the Court to order

his release from prison. I (D .I. 2 at 5)

IOn April 12, 2013, one day after filing the instant Petition, Petitioner filed another
document entitled "Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Habeas Corpus." (D.I. 4) The "Writ of
Mandamus, Writ of Habeas Corpus"contends that Petitioner has been denied access to the law
library to defend himself in his state criminal case, and asks the Court to order the prison staff to
allow Petitioner to use the law library or order his release. (D.I. 4 at 2) Considering that the
"Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Habeas Corpus" was filed one day after the instant Petition, and
given the request for immediate release contained therein, the document will be considered to
have been filed in the instant case as a supplement to the Petition. For instance, the "Writ of
Mandamus, Writ of Habeas Corpus" asserts that an attorney has been appointed to represent him
"against his will," which supports Claim Two ofthe Petition. (D.I. 4 at 1)
Nevertheless, even construing this "Writ of Mandamus, Writ of Habeas Corpus" as
constituting an independent request for mandamus relief, rather than as a supplemental brief, the
request is unavailing. Lack of access to a prison law library does not provide a basis for federal
habeas relief in the form of release from custody. Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is
alleging that the alleged denial of access to the law library has denied him access to the courts in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, his claim fails as a matter of law. Petitioner is represented by
counsel in his state court criminal proceeding and he has failed to demonstrate any actual injury
arising from the alleged denial of access to the law library. See Lamp v. Iowa, 122 F .3d 1100,
1106 (8th Cir.1997) ("For, once the State has provided a petitioner with an attorney in
2

II.

LEGALSTANDARDS
A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas application "if it plainly appears from

the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief."
Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In order to become eligible for federal habeas relief, a petitioner
in custody pursuant to a state court judgment must exhaust state remedies for his habeas claims.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and (b)(1)(A); see also Rules 1- 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Although a
state prisoner can challenge his pre-trial custody on speedy trial grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, a federal court cannot provide habeas review for pre-trial claims if the petitioner is trying

to abort his state criminal proceeding, because such adjudication would constitute premature
litigation of constitutional defenses in federal court. See 28 U.S. C. § 2254(b); Moore v.

DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437,441-42 (3d Cir. 1975); Braden v. J(Jh Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973) (noting that habeas corpus review is not available to
adjudicate merits of affirmative defense to state criminal charge prior to state court conviction,
but that, in special circumstances, habeas corpus is appropriate vehicle by which to demand
enforcement of state's constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial).

III.

DISCUSSION
After reviewing Petitioner's filings, the Court concludes that summary dismissal of the

instant Petition is appropriate. First, it is clear from the face of the pending Petition that

postconviction proceedings, it has provided him with the 'capability of bringing contemplated
challenges to sentences or conditions of confinement before the courts."') (quoting Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 356 (1996)); Sanders v. Rockland Cnty. Carr. Facility, 1995 WL 479445,
at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 14, 1995) ("By the appointment of counsel, plaintiff was afforded
meaningful access to the courts in his trial."); Williams v. Vaughn, 1991 WL 34429, at *4
(E.D.Pa. March 12, 1991) ("Thus, [plaintiff-inmate] Williams was not actually injured by any
inability to gain access to the law library since he ultimately obtained representation.").
3

Petitioner is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, as he has yet to undergo his state
criminal trial on the charge of possession of a controlled substance. Second, Petitioner requests
immediate release, demonstrating that he is attempting to abort a state criminal proceeding.
Finally, Petitioner's filings do not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying the Court's
interference with a pending state court proceeding prior to Petitioner having first exhausted state
remedies. See Moore, 515 F.2d at 443. Accordingly, the Court will summarily dismiss
Petitioner's § 2241 Petition.
IV.

MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
During the pendency of this proceeding, Petitioner filed a document titled "Writ of

Mandamus," asking the Court to immediately serve his "numerous writs and complaints" and
order the respondents to answer his complaints. (D.I. 10) Petitioner also requests the
undersigned to "resign" from the case.
The Court is not persuaded that the instant motion constitutes a true petition for a writ of
mandamus. Nevertheless, to the extent Petitioner's request for mandamus relief relates to the
instant Petition, the Court has already decided to summarily dismiss the Petition. Therefore, the
Court will deny the mandamus request as moot. 2

V.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court will summarily dismiss Petitioner's Petition for

federal habeas relief. The Court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because
Petitioner has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28

2

The Court notes that the Petition will be served on the State along with this
Memorandum and Order. The State, however, will not be ordered to file a responsive filing.
4

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); see also 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d
Cir. 1997). A separate order will be entered.

Dated: June 24, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5