Woods v. Sheriff
Filing
3
OPINION AND ORDER: The 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 12/12/2013. cc: Woods (tc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
DERRICK R. WOODS,
Petitioner,
vs.
SHERIFF,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 2:13-CV-455
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Petition under 28
U.S.C. Paragraph 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Derrick R.
Woods on December 9, 2013. For the reasons set forth below, the
petition (DE #1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DISCUSSION
Derrick R. Woods, a pro se prisoner, is attempting to avoid
being prosecuted by the State of Indiana for Dealing in Cocaine or
Other Narcotic Drug. “Ordinarily the attempt of a state prisoner to
obtain federal habeas corpus relief in advance of his state
criminal trial [is] completely hopeless.” United States ex rel.
Stevens v. Circuit Court of Milwaukee County, 675 F.2d 946, 947
(7th Cir. 1982). This is one of those ordinary cases. Though the
circuit in Stevens provided for a narrow exception to entertain
some double jeopardy claims, this case does not present a double
jeopardy claim.
[T]he relief he is seeking in this habeas corpus
proceeding is . . . to enjoin his state criminal trial.
So far as that objective is concerned it is immaterial
whether he is in custody pursuant to a previous
conviction, out on bond, or entirely at liberty while
awaiting trial. The relief he is seeking, though within
the broad remedial powers granted federal judges by the
habeas corpus statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 2243; cf. 28
U.S.C. § 2251 (stay of state-court proceedings), is
remote from the original purpose of habeas corpus-release
from unlawful incarceration. In addition, it violates the
principle of 28 U.S.C. § 2283 as construed in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669
(1971), that federal courts do not lightly enjoin state
criminal proceedings.
Id.
Younger v. Harris teaches that federal courts should be
slow to enjoin state criminal proceedings. Against this
must be set the policy of effective enforcement of the
rights conferred by the double jeopardy clause. We think
the Younger policy is the weightier when the defendant is
not being asked to undergo a second trial. This
conclusion does not leave the defendant without remedy.
Stevens had available to him, and invoked, pretrial
remedies in the state courts, which rejected his double
jeopardy argument after considering it on the merits. We
do not think he was entitled to more . . ..
Id. at 949.
So too in this case. To the extent that Woods believes that he
has a viable defense to the charges against him or that his case is
not being properly adjudicated, he can present those claims to the
State courts.
In addition, Woods is attempting to challenge the revocation
of his bail. However, he has not yet presented this claim to the
Indiana Supreme Court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). As
stated in the petition, Woods has not exhausted the remedies
2
available to him by presenting this claim (or any other claim) to
the Indiana Supreme Court. Such a remedy exists and it is effective
as demonstrated in Vacendak v. State, 302 N.E. 2d 779 (Ind. 1973)
where the Indiana Supreme Court remanded a state habeas corpus
proceeding and ordered a bail hearing.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the petition (DE #1) is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED: December 12, 2013
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United State District Court
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?