Hilliard v. Lakin

Filing 5

ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Signed by Judge David R. Herndon on 5/15/2018. (tjk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDREW J. HILLIARD,
No. 93387 ,
Petitioner,
vs.
JOHN LAKIN,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

–1044-DRH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pro se Petitioner Andrew J. Hilliard, a pretrial detainee being held in the
Madison County Jail, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is being detained on state criminal charges in Case
No. 17-CF-3260. Petitioner objects to an order issued by the state trial court on
March 20, 2018, finding him incompetent to stand trial. Additionally, Petitioner
objects to the trial court’s decision to hold him without bond.
This case is now before the Court for a preliminary review of the Petition
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
District Courts. Rule 4 provides that upon preliminary consideration by the
district court judge, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 1(b)

1

of those Rules gives this Court the authority to apply the rules to other habeas
corpus cases, such as those under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After carefully reviewing the
petition, the Court concludes that this action must be dismissed.
THE PETITION
According to the Petition, on March 20, 2018, Petitioner, who is being held
without bond, was deemed “unfit to stand trial without a fitness hearing.” (Doc.
1, p. 2). Petitioner indicates that he has filed several motions pertaining to his
fitness to stand trial and/or pertaining to his pro se status, terminating counsel,
and seeking habeas relief in the state court proceeding. Petitioner contends that
his motions remain “unanswered.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges that the state trial
court has denied him due process and/or equal protection of the law by failing to
have a jury trial regarding his competency and by failing to provide him with
effective counsel. (Doc. 1, p. 6). Plaintiff also purports to bring claims for cruel
and unusual punishment pertaining to conditions at the Madison County Jail.
In connection with the above claims, Petitioner asks this Court to order the
state trial court to (1) hold a fitness hearing and mandate that a jury render a
decision on Petitioner’s competency; (2) compel the state trial court to answer
Plaintiff’s motions; and (3) compel the state trial court to issue a “reasonable”
bond.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to order the Madison County Jail to take

certain action regarding the complained of conditions of confinement.

2

PENDING CRIMINAL PROCEEDING
Petitioner is challenging his state criminal proceedings in Madison County
Case No. 17-CF-3260. By all indications, the subject state proceeding is currently
pending. The most recent court order was entered on April 16, 2018, stating as
follows:
ORDER THE DEF HAS PERSONALLY FILED NUMEROUS MTNS IN
THE ABOVE MATTER. THE DEF WAS FOUND UNFIT TO STAND
TRIAL ON 3/20/18, AND REMANDED TO DHS FOR TX. GIVEN
THAT HE IS CURRENTLY UNFIT, THE LAW REQUIRES THAT HE
BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT
AN UNFIT DEF TO REPRESENT HIMSELF. THE PD’S OFFICE
CURRENTLY REPRESENTS THE DEF. UNTIL SUCH TIME AS SAID
MTNS ARE ADOPTED BY THE ATTY OF RECORD. THE COURT
WILL NOT ACT ON THEM. THE CLERK IS DIRECTED TO SEND A
COPY OF THIS ORDER ALONG W/ A COPY OF THE PRO SE
PLEADINGS TO THE ATTYS OF RECORD. THE CLERK SHALL
ALSO SEND A COPY OF THIS ORDER TO THE DEF.
DISCUSSION
Section 2241 allows a pretrial detainee to bring a habeas corpus petition,
but this ability is limited by the policy of federal courts not to interfere with
pending state criminal prosecutions except in special circumstances. Braden v.

30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489–92 (1973); Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971); Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571, 573 (7th Cir.
2010); United States v. Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 296–97 (7th Cir. 1991); Neville v.

Cavanaugh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979). Habeas corpus relief (under both
§ 2241 and § 2254) is limited to questions of federal law; relief is unavailable for
errors of state law. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991).

3

The Younger doctrine forbids federal courts, under most circumstances,
from enjoining an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Younger v. Harrison, 401
U.S. 37 (1971). See also Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2013); Am.

Civil Liberties Union of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 594 (7th Cir. 2012). Federal
courts must abstain from interfering with state court criminal proceedings
involving important state interests, as long as the state court provides an
opportunity to raise the federal claims and no “exceptional circumstances” exist.

Stroman realty, Inc. v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2007). Exceptional
circumstances have been found in instances where irreparable damage would
occur, such as prosecutorial harassment and bad faith or speedy trial and double
jeopardy claims, but only where the petitioner has first exhausted his available
state court remedies. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43, 49; Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973) (collecting cases).

The petition

describes no exceptional circumstances. Therefore, this Court must abstain from
intruding into the State’s criminal process under such circumstances.
Petitioner also brings claims pertaining to conditions of confinement at the
Madison County Jail. But a habeas petition is not the proper vehicle for pursuing
these claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 386–
87 (7th Cir. 2005); Williams v. Wisconsin, 336 F.3d 576, 579 (7th Cir. 2003).
These claims must be raised, if at all, in a separate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973).

4

In summary, the ongoing adjudication of Petitioner’s criminal case leads the
Court to conclude that it should abstain from intervening in this pending matter.
Further, the Court cannot provide any relief with regard to Petitioner’s conditions
of confinement claims.

Accordingly, the Petition shall be dismissed. The

dismissal shall be without prejudice to any other habeas petition that Petitioner
may file and without prejudice to Petitioner bringing his conditions of
confinement claims in a civil rights action.
DISPOSITION
For all the foregoing reasons, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc.
1) is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner has not yet exhausted his state court remedies,
and the ongoing adjudication of Petitioner’s criminal case leads the Court to
conclude that it should abstain from intervening in this pending matter. The
dismissal is without prejudice to any other habeas petition that Petitioner may file
and without prejudice to Petitioner bringing his conditions of confinement claims
in a civil rights action.
Should Petitioner desire to appeal this Court's ruling, he must first secure a
certificate of appealability, either from this Court or from the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, a certificate of appealability may issue “only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

5

This requirement has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that
an applicant must show that “reasonable jurists would find the district court's
assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While a Petitioner need not show that his appeal will
succeed, Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337 (2003), he must show
“something more than the absence of frivolity” or the existence of mere “good
faith” on his part. Id. at 338 (citation omitted). If the district court denies the
request, a petitioner may request that a circuit judge issue the certificate. See FED.
R. APP. P. 22(b)(1)-(3).
For the reasons detailed above, the Court has determined that Petitioner is
not entitled to relief at this time because he has yet to exhaust his state court
remedies, and because Petitioner’s criminal case is ongoing, the Court should
abstain from intervening. Furthermore, the Court finds no basis for a
determination that its decision is debatable or incorrect. Thus, Petitioner has not
made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a certificate of appealability shall NOT

6

be issued. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly and close this
case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Judge Herndon
2018.05.15 16:40:10
-05'00'
David R. Herndon

7