Johnson v. Morgan et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 11/21/13. (cla, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE

RONALD G. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

v.

)

)
)
)

)

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

Civil Action No. 13-1136-GMS

)
)
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
In August 2012, petitioner Ronald G. Johnson was indicted on the charge of possession of

a controlled substance. He was released on unsecured bail. Johnson'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 Johnson was held in lieu of $20,000 cash bail. See In the

Matter ofthe Petition of Ronald G. Johnsonjor a Writ ofMandamus, No. 259, 2013, Holland,
1., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30,2013); In the Matter ofthe Petition of Ronald G. Johnsonfor a

Writ ofMandamus, No. 239, 2013, Holland, J., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013); In the Matter
ofthe Petition of Ronald G. Johnsonfor a Writ ofProhibition, No. 240,2013, Holland, J., Order
at 1-2 (Del. May 30,2013). On April 4, 2013, Johnson's counsel in his state criminal proceeding
filed a motion for a psychiatric aneIJor psychological evaluation to determine whether Johnson is
competent to stand trial. See In the Matter ofthe Petition ofRonald G. Johnson for a Writ of

Prohibition, No. 240, 2013, Holland, J., Order at 1-2 (Del. May 30, 2013). The court does not

know the result of that evaluation, or the current status of Johnson's criminal proceeding in the
Delaware state courts.
Presently pending before the court is Johnson's "petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241," in which he contends that he is being held unconstitutionally
because his $20,000 bail is excessive. (D.!. 2 at 1)
II.

LEGAL STANDARDS
A district court judge 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. foIl. § 2254. As a general rule, a federal district court can only
entertain a habeas petition in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court, and a petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief unless he has exhausted state
remedies for his habeas claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and (b)(1)(A); see also Rules 1- 2, 28
U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. Although a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3) to entertain a pre-trial petition for habeas corpus, such jurisdiction should not be
exercised at the pre-trial stage when the petitioner has not exhausted state remedies, unless
extraordinary circumstances are present. See Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441-43 (3d Cir.
1975). And, where there are no extraordinary circumstances and the petitioner seeks to litigate
the merits of a constitutional defense to a state criminal charge, a district court should only
exercise its pre-trial habeas jurisdiction if the petitioner has exhausted state remedies and makes
a special showing of the need for such adjudication. ld.; see also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court ofKentucky, 410 U.S. 484,493 (1973)(noting that habeas corpus review is not available to
adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a state court

2

conviction, but that, in special circumstances, habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle by which
to demand enforcement of a state's constitutional obligation to provide a speedy trial).

III.

DISCUSSION
After reviewing Johnson's petition, the court concludes that relief is not warranted as to

his excessive bail challenge. Pirst, it is clear from the face of the pending petition that Johnson is
not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment because he has not yet undergone his state
criminal trial on the charge of possession of a controlled substance. Second, it appears that
Johnson has not exhausted his state remedies with respect to his bail issue, 1 and nothing in his
petition demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying the court's interference with a
pending state court proceeding without Johnson having first exhausted state remedies. See

Moore, 515 P .2d at 443. Accordingly, the court will summarily dismiss Johnson's § 2241
petition.

IV.

CONCLUSION
Por the reasons set forth above, the court will summarily dismiss Johnson's § 2241

petition for federal habeas relief. The court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability
because Johnson has failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

Iprom what the court can discern, Johnson filed several pro se motions in the Delaware
Superior Court requesting a reduction in bail. However, because Johnson is represented by
counsel, the Superior Court refused to consider Johnson's pro se motions, and referred those
motions to Johnson's counsel. See In re Ronald G. Johnson, No.239,2013, Order, Ho1land, C.J.
(Del. May 30, 2013); see also Del. Super. Ct. Cr. R. 47 (the Superior Court may not consider pro
se applications by defendants who are represented by counsel unless the defendant has been
granted permission to participate with counsel in his defense). In short, Johnson's improper pro
se filings in his state criminal proceeding did not exhaust state remedies for federal habeas
purposes because the filings did not constitute "fair presentation" of the request.

3

right." 28 U.S.C. § 22S3(c)(2); 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:

_-=-N-,,--O_v--:..}--..!.-l_, 2013

4