Johnson v. Superior Court et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 10/9/14. (mas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
RONALD G. JOHNSON,
Petitioner,

v.

)
)
)
)

)

Civil Action No. 14-1133-GMS

)
DELAWARE SUPERIOR COURT, )
et. al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)

MEMORANDUM
I.

BACKGROUND
Presently pending before the court is petitioner Ronald 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: (1) he has not been indicted within forty-five days of his arrest; and
(2) his $15,000 bail is excessive. (D.I. 1 at 3)

II.

LEGALSTANDARDS
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 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 the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a
state court 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. First,

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 unspecified
charges for which he was arrested. Second, to the extent he is requesting immediate release, he
is improperly attempting to abort a state criminal proceeding. And finally, it appears that
Johnson has not exhausted his state remedies with respect to his bail issue, 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 F.2d at 443. Accordingly, the court will summarily dismiss Johnson's § 2241
petition.

IV.

CONCLUSION
For 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 ofthe denial of a constitutional

2

right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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.

o....,:,J.::::......::.._9-+--' 2o14

Dated: _ _

3