Roedel v. Coffey County Jail

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 2 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus action is granted. Petitioner's motion 4 for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. The petition is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 07/29/15. Mailed to pro se party Roger Roedel by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ROGER ROEDEL,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.

15-3120-SAC

COFFEY COUNTY JAIL,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a petition for a writ
of

habeas

corpus

under

28

U.S.C.

§

2241,

filed

pro

se

by

petitioner while confined as a pretrial detainee in the Coffey
County

Jail

in

Burlington,

Kansas.

Petitioner’s

motion

for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of the
$5.00 filing fee in this habeas corpus action is granted.
BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
Petitioner cites his arrest on January 20, 2015, and claims
he

was

held

for

11

days

before

criminal

charges

were

filed

against him in Coffey County Case No. 15CR31, before bond was
set, and before counsel was appointed.
delay
states

violated
his

his

bond

constitutional

has

been

set

too
1

Petitioner contends this

right
high

to

due

given

process,
his

and

financial

resources.

Petitioner claims little action has been taken in

his Coffey County case, and references a motion to dismiss he
has filed or is trying to file in that case.

He also claims the

Coffey County Attorney is abusing the judicial system in order
to achieve goals in violation of petitioner’s rights.
On these claims petitioner filed the instant habeas action
seeking his immediate release and dismissal of his Coffey County
charges.

The

respondent.

Coffey

County

Jail

is

named

as

the

sole

He also seeks damages for the alleged violation of

his constitutional rights, and to compensate him for his alleged
illegal confinement.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the record with a liberal reading
of petitioner’s pro se pleadings, Ledbetter v. City of Topeka,
Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003), the court finds the
petition

is

subject

to

being

summarily

dismissed

for

the

following reasons.
“Habeas corpus review is available under § 2241 if one is
‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.’”

McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115

F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir.1997)(quoting § 2241(c)(3)). Because it
appears from the sparse record before the court that petitioner
is

a

pretrial

detainee

with

pending
2

state

criminal

charges

against him, his petition for habeas corpus relief under § 2241
is appropriate.

See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 U.S. F.3d 1227

(10th Cir.2007)(the general grant of habeas authority set forth
in 28 U.S.C. § 2241 applies to challenges involving pretrial
detention of a state court defendant); Yellowbear v. Wyoming
Attorney

General,

525

F.3d

921,

924

(10th

Cir.2008)(pretrial

detention can be challenged through a habeas petition brought
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241).
No exhaustion of state court remedies
Petitioner’s attempt to seek federal habeas corpus relief
is

premature.

remedies

is

A

a

petitioner’s

prerequisite

exhaustion

to

seeking

of

other

federal

available

habeas

corpus

relief. Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir.2010).
Here petitioner cites no resort to available remedies in the
state district or appellate courts, and there is nothing in the
information provided to suggest that petitioner has pursued such
remedies.

The petition should therefore be dismissed without

prejudice.
Abstention doctrine bars federal intervention
Likewise,
intervention

the abstention doctrine precludes
in

petitioner’s

pending

criminal

this

court’s

action.

In

Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that federal courts
generally should not intervene in state criminal prosecutions
3

begun before institution of a federal suit in which the state
court defendant seeks an order enjoining the state court from
proceeding with the action against him. A federal court should
abstain

from

enjoining

such

state

prosecutions

if

the

state

court proceedings: (1) are ongoing, (2) offer an adequate forum
to

hear

the

important

plaintiff's

state

federal

interests.

Id.

claims,

at

43;

and

see

(3)

implicate

Middlesex

County

Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423,
432 (1982).

These three conditions are met in this case.

Petitioner makes clear that his state criminal proceeding
is ongoing.

The prosecution of a person accused of violating

state law implicates an important state interest. See, e.g.,
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975) (invoking Younger
abstention

in

a

case

involving

a

pending

state

criminal

prosecution, noting that the doctrine permits state courts to
try state cases without a federal court’s interference).
the

Kansas

courts

provide

petitioner

with

an

And

adequate

opportunity to present his federal constitutional claims, such
as

petitioner’s challenge to

the legality of the search and

seizure of his property.
To avoid application of the abstention doctrine, petitioner
must demonstrate “harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state
officials

in

bad

faith

without
4

hope

of

obtaining

a

valid

conviction

and

perhaps

in

other

extraordinary

where irreparable injury can be shown.”
U.S.

82,

85

(1971);

see

Younger

v.

circumstances

Perez v. Ledesma, 401

Harris,

401

U.S.

at

54

(recognizing an exception when the claimant shows “bad faith,
harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call
for

equitable

relief”).

Notwithstanding

petitioner’s

bare

conclusory claim that the Coffey County prosecutor is abusing
the judicial system in order to achieve improper results, the
record

discloses

no

factual

allegations

suggesting

that

petitioner would suffer irreparable injury if the state court
proceedings were allowed to go forward, or that criminal charges
were

brought

by

the

prosecutor

conviction merely to harass him.

with

no

hope

of

a

valid

The court thus finds that all

the Younger abstention conditions are satisfied in this case,
and that the petition should be dismissed without prejudice.
Additional Considerations
The court also identifies additional problems presented in
the § 2241 petition.
First, petitioner has not named a proper respondent.

The

Coffey County Jail is not a legal entity that can be sued.

See

Aston v. Cunningham, 216 F.3d 1086, 2000 WL 796086 at *4 n. 3
(10th
person

Cir.2000)
or

(unpublished)(“a

legally

created

detention

entity
5

capable

facility
of

is

being

not

a

sued”).

Instead, petitioner must name the person having custody over
him, 28 U.S.C. § 2242, such as the Coffey County Sheriff.
Second, monetary damages are not recoverable in a habeas
action. McIntosh, 115 F.3d at 812.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a civil cause of
action seeking damages for the alleged violation of a prisoner’s
rights

under

the

United

States

Constitution

or

laws

of

the

United States is premature if an award for the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence
through

a

direct

appeal,

order

of

expungement,

decree

of

collateral relief, or writ of habeas corpus. Id., 512 U.S. at
486–87.

Heck

applies

when

a

damage

award

would

imply

the

invalidity of pretrial detention, as well as a conviction or
sentence. See e.g.
(10th

Cohen v. Clemens, 321 Fed.Appx. 739, 742

Cir.2009)(unpublished)

(applying

Heck

to

civil

claim

involving pretrial detention).
IT

IS

THEREFORE

BY

THE

COURT

ORDERED

that

petitioner’s

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) in this
habeas corpus action is granted, and that petitioner’s motion
for appointment of counsel (Doc. 4) is denied without prejudice.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6

the

petition

is

dismissed

Dated in Topeka, Kansas on this 29th day of July, 2015.

s/ Sam A. Crow___________
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

7