Maier v. Kansas, State of et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Case Nos. 17-3047-SAC and 17-3048-SAC are consolidated and are dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner's motions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied and the Notices of Deficiency entered in these matters are set aside. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 03/24/17. Mailed to pro se party Christopher Coty Maier by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

CHRISTOPHER COTY MAIER,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 17-3047-SAC

STATE OF KANSAS,
Respondent.
CHRISTOPHER COTY MAIER,
Petitioner,
CASE NO. 17-3048-SAC
STATE OF KANSAS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
These actions are petitions for habeas corpus filed by a pretrial
detainee held in the Douglas County Jail, Lawrence, Kansas. Petitioner
filed Case No. 17-3047 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Case No. 17-3048
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court has conducted an initial screening
of these actions, and, finding them to be essentially identical,
consolidates them for ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2)(“[i]f
actions before the court involve a common question of law or fact,
the court may … consolidate the actions.”)
In both actions, petitioner alleges broadly that he was coerced
to attend court, that he was there denied due process and trial by
jury, that he is being illegally held under the name of a limited
liability corporation, and that the “so-called victim” was arrested
for lying and sent to prison. He seeks the dismissal of the charges

pending against him and immediate release.
Screening standard
A district court must review a petition for habeas corpus
promptly and must summarily dismiss the matter “[i]f it plainly
appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief….” Rule 4, Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases.
Discussion
A pretrial detainee may challenge his confinement under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir.
2007)(considering a double jeopardy claim presented under Section
2241 in a petition filed by a pretrial detainee). However, a federal
court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction in a pretrial
habeas corpus action if the claims presented by the petitioner may
be resolved either by a trial on the merits or by other available state
court remedies. Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 n. 2 (10th Cir.
1993).
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court
held that a federal court should not intervene in a state criminal
action filed before the commencement of the federal action where the
state court proceedings: (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important
state interests; and (3) provide an adequate forum to present the
petitioner’s federal claims. Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341
F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003).

Where these conditions are met,

a federal court should intervene only “in cases of proven harassment
or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without
hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other
extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”

Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).
Here, the state court action against petitioner is ongoing, and
the State has an important interest in conducting criminal proceedings
against those charged with violations of state criminal law. See Kelly
v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)(“the States’ interest in
administering their criminal justice systems free from federal
interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that
should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”)
Petitioner does not suggest any reason why the Kansas state courts
cannot provide a fair forum for him to present any federal claims,
nor does he suggest the state proceedings were brought for a patently
improper purpose.
Petitioner’s failure to exhaust state court remedies provides
a second basis for the dismissal of this action. A petitioner seeking
federal habeas corpus relief under Section 2241 must first seek relief
from the state courts, including the state appellate courts. See
Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000)(“A habeas
petitioner is generally required to exhaust state remedies whether
his action is brought under § 2241 or § 2254.”) Petitioner does not
show that he has exhausted his claims by presenting them to the state
courts.
Conclusion
The Court concludes this consolidated matter must be dismissed
without prejudice. There is no ground shown for federal intervention
in the state criminal proceedings against petitioner, nor has
petitioner exhausted available state court remedies.
The Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability
in this matter because petitioner has not made a substantial showing

that jurists of reason would find the resolution of this matter to
be debatable.
IT IS, THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED these actions are
consolidated and are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma
pauperis are denied and the Notices of Deficiency entered in these
matters are set aside.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Court declines to issue a certificate
of appealability.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

This 24th day of March, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.

S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge