BAEZ v. Johnson

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING (1) Petition. Ordered by Judge Marc Thomas Treadwell on 6/24/2013. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION

ROBERTO BAEZ,
Petitioner
VS.
GLEN JOHNSON,
Respondent
________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION: 5:13-CV-0222-MTT

ORDER
Petitioner ROBERTO BAEZ, a state prisoner currently confined in Hancock State
Prison, in Sparta Georgia, has filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, according to his application for relief, Petitioner is not
seeking to challenge the validity of any criminal conviction or his current sentence.
Petitioner alleges that he was “booked and charged” with an offense on February 10,
2012, and later notified that he would not be tried on the charge until after he completes
his present sentence. Petitioner apparently filed a state habeas petition regarding the
pending charge and was denied a hearing. He now seeks relief from this Court, as he
believes that his “right to a speedy trial” and guarantee against “double jeopardy” are
being violated.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
requires this Court to promptly examine every application filed and thereafter enter a
summary dismissal if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief in the district court.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4; McFarland v. Scott,

512 U.S. 849, 856, 114 S.Ct. 2568, 2572, 129 L.Ed.2d 666 (1994) (“Federal courts are
authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on
its face.”). It is clear from the face of the present application that § 2254 is not the
appropriate vehicle for obtaining the relief Petitioner seeks.
Section 2254 provides relief for a person “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a
State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is not claiming to be in
custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. According to his application,
Petitioner’s present incarceration is not the result of the pending charge; he is currently
serving a sentence for an unrelated conviction.1 While Petitioner does allege that the
pending charge may lead to his being held on a detainer upon completion of his current
sentence, he is not presently being held on a detainer. This fact also precludes him from
pursuing a cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See id. (providing relief for those “in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”).
Although it does not appear that Petitioner has attempted to file any other type of
civil action, he is nonetheless advised that this Court may not consider any civil claims
arising out of his criminal prosecution while it is still ongoing. Federal courts are required
refrain to from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings, such as those
described in Petitioner’s application, when the party requesting federal intervention has
an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 53, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Petitioner has not alleged any facts
suggesting that he is unable to raise his speedy trial and double jeopardy objections in the
1

An offender inquiry on the Georgia Department of Corrections website, http://www.dcor.state.ga.us,
revealed that Petitioner is presently serving a life sentence for armed robbery. The pending charge was
apparently brought for possession of a controlled substance.

-2-

state courts2 or is otherwise unable defend against the pending charges during his
eventual prosecution. The mere fact that Plaintiff must endure state criminal prosecution
fails to demonstrate irreparable harm. Id.
For all of these reasons, the present Petition for habeas corpus relief shall be
DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED, this 24th day of June, 2013.

S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
jlr

2

Under Georgia law, a criminal defendant may file a motion in his criminal case to bar his trial on the ground
that his constitutional rights to a speedy trial or against double jeopardy have been violated; and he may
directly appeal the denial thereof. See e.g., Hardeman v. State, 280 Ga. App. 168, 168 (2006) (speedy
trial); Patterson v. State, 248 Ga. 875, 876 (1982) (double jeopardy).

-3-