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. The petition is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 08/05/15. Mailed to pro se party Ernest Wayne Roedel by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ERNEST WAYNE ROEDEL,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.

15-3169-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 eleven days before criminal charges were filed
against him in Coffey County Case No. 15CR32, 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.
his

Petitioner filed the instant habeas action seeking

immediate

charges.

release

The

respondent.

and

Coffey

dismissal

County

Jail

of
is

his
named

Coffey
as

County

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

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
2

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, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held
that

federal

courts

generally

should

not

intervene

in

state

criminal prosecutions 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.
federal

court

should

abstain

from

enjoining

such

A

state

prosecutions if the state court proceedings: (1) are ongoing,
3

(2) offer an adequate forum to

hear the plaintiff's federal

claims, and (3) implicate important state interests. Id. at 43;
see

Middlesex

County

Ethics

Committee

Association, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

v.

Garden

State

Bar

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
conviction

in

bad

and

faith

perhaps

without
in

other

hope

of

obtaining

extraordinary

where irreparable injury can be shown.”

a

valid

circumstances

Perez v. Ledesma, 401

U.S. 82, 85 (1971); see Younger, 401 U.S. at 54 (recognizing an
exception when the claimant shows “bad faith, harassment, or any
4

other

unusual

relief”).

circumstance

that

would

Notwithstanding petitioner’s

call

for

equitable

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 with no hope of a valid conviction merely to harass
him.

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

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.
5

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.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

petition

is

dismissed

without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas on this 5th day of August, 2015.

s/ Sam A. Crow___________
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge
6