Noble v. Pierce et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson on 3/15/2016. (nmfn)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
THOMAS E. NOBLE,
Petitioner,

v.

Civ. No. 16-43-SLR

DAVID PIERCE, Warden, et. al.,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM
1. Background. In January 2014, petitioner was indicted on twenty-five counts of
dealing in child pornography. See In re Noble, 108 A.3d 1225 (Table), 2015 WL 528211, at
*1 (Del. Feb. 9, 2015). In February 2014, the Delaware Superior Court granted petitioner
leave to proceed prose and appointed standby counsel to represent him. Id. In August
2014, the Superior Court ordered that petitioner undergo a psychiatric and psychological
evaluation to determine his competency to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the
offense. Id. Based on the evaluation, on January 26, 2015, a Delaware Superior Court
Commissioner ordered that petitioner be confined and treated at the Delaware Psychiatric
Center until he was capable of standing trial. Id. at *1 n.2. Petitioner has filed multiple
petitions for extraordinary writs in the Delaware state courts in connection with his child
pornography charges. See In re Noble, 2015 WL 877469, at *1 (Del. Feb. 27, 2015).
2. In January 2016, while in pre-trial custody at the James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center in Smyrna, Delaware, petitioner filed in this court a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (D.I. 1) and an application for "writ of habeas corpus by an unconvicted
state prisoner and for construal as a hybrid petition-complaint." (D.I. 3) Petitioner contends
that the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 because he is attacking his pre-trial
custody. (D.I. 3 at 4) Petitioner asserts that "this action is brought as a hybrid habeas

corpus petition/complaint, seeking solely declaratory and injunctive relief, [and] no money
damages" (D. I. 3 at 1), and states that some of the forty-six claims in his application are
being raised under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, as well as 18 U.S.C. §1503 et. seq. and
18 U.S.C. § 242. (D.I. 3 at 4-5) Petitioner lists as respondents the Warden of his prison,
Delaware state court judges, Delaware state court staff, and prosecutors assigned to his
Delaware state criminal case. For relief, petitioner explicitly asks that the court dismiss the
State's criminal case against him with prejudice and delete all traces of the criminal charges
from his record. (D.I. 3 at 46)
3. In February 2016, petitioner filed a motion for preliminary injunction and/or
restraining order to stay the Delaware trial court proceedings that are scheduled for April 13,
2016. (D.I. 8 at 2) Although not entirely clear, petitioner appears to request the
injunction/stay of his future Delaware criminal proceeding because he has named the judge
presiding over that trial as a respondent in this case and as a defendant in two of his other
Delaware state proceedings. (D.I. 8 at 1) Petitioner contends that the judge assigned to his
upcoming Delaware criminal trial is conflicted and completely disregarding constitutional
law. Id. at 2. Petitioner asks that the court grant the injunction/stay until the final resolution
of the instant federal habeas proceeding.

4. Standard of Review. Federal courts are required to liberally construe prose
filings. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998). Nevertheless, a district court
may summarily dismiss a habeas petition "if it plainly appears from the face of the petition
and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." See Rule 4, 28
U.S.C. foll. § 2254. In turn, a district court can only entertain a habeas application on 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
2

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. OeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441-42 (3d Cir. 1975); Braden
v. 301h 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).
5. Discussion. Having reviewed the face of the instant application, the court
concludes that summary dismissal is appropriate. Petitioner's forty-six claims assert
numerous issues, ranging from the alleged violation of petitioner's right to selfrepresentation to the alleged obstruction and alteration of state court records. To the extent
the instant application asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 etc, those claims are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1 To the extent the application asserts claims properly
considered on habeas review, those claims are dismissed because petitioner has failed to
allege that he has exhausted his state remedies on the merits, and he has failed to present
extraordinary circumstances which would warrant pre-trial habeas corpus relief. See
Moore, 515 F.2d at 443, 447. It is clear from the face of the pending application that

1 Petitioner

may present his "civil rights" claims (D.I. 3 at 4) in a complaint clearly
identifying the statutes under which he seeks relief.

3

petitioner is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment because he has not yet
undergone his state criminal trial on the charges of dealing in child pornography. In
addition, petitioner explicitly requests immediate release and the dismissal of his criminal
case, demonstrating that he is attempting to abort a state criminal proceeding. Accordingly,
the court will summarily dismiss petitioner's habeas application without prejudice.
6. Given the foregoing, the court will deny as moot petitioner's motion for a
preliminary injunction and/or stay of his Delaware criminal proceeding.
7. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because petitioner has
failed to make a "substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2); see United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3d Cir. L.A.R. 22.2
(2011).
8. Conclusion. For the above reasons, the court will summarily dismiss the instant
habeas application without prejudice and deny as moot the motion for preliminary injunction
and/or stay of petitioner's Delaware criminal proceeding. A separate order shall issue.

Dated: March I~

, 2016

4