Walker v. Burkhart
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Walker's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Record No. 1 ] is DENIED, without prejudice. 2. This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 05/25/2018.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
SOUTHERN DIVISION
(at London)
TAMIKO WALKER,
Petitioner,
v.
B. J. BURKHART,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6: 18-5-DCR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
*** *** *** ***
Tamiko Walker is a pre-trial detainee currently confined at the Harlan County
Detention Center (“HCDC”) in Harlan, Kentucky. Proceeding without counsel, Walker has
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Record No. 1]
The Court conducts an initial review of habeas corpus petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 2243;
Alexander v. Northern Bureau of Prisons, 419 F. App’x 544, 545 (6th Cir. 2011). A petition
will be denied “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)). Walker’s petition
is evaluated under a more lenient standard because he is not represented by an attorney.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). At this stage of the proceedings, the Court accepts
the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and construes all legal claims in his favor. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
Walker is currently being held in the HCDC pending resolution of state criminal
charges filed against him by the Commonwealth of Kentucky in Commonwealth v. Walker,
-1-
No. 17-cr-115, 17-cr-116, 17-cr-117 (Cir. Ct. Harlan Co. 2017). His petition asserts that his
speedy trial rights are being violated in criminal proceedings pending in the Harlan County
Circuit Court. Walker states that he has raised the speedy trial issue at several pre-trial court
dates and attaches a motion to dismiss the indictment on speedy trial violation grounds filed
on March 14, 2018 by his attorney in his criminal proceedings. [Record No. 1, Exhibit 1] He
contends that this was overruled by the state Circuit Court judge on April 5, 2018. Walker
also claims that that state court has set an unreasonable bond and attaches a motion to reduce
bond filed by his attorney in his criminal case in March 2018. [Record No. 1, Exhibit 2] His
petition requests that this Court dismiss his state criminal case. [Record No. 1 at p. 8]
While a habeas corpus petition filed under § 2241 by a pretrial detainee in state custody
may be used to challenge his prosecution prior to judgment, Phillips v. Court of Common
Pleas, Hamilton Co., Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2012), the instances in which such
person may do so are “rare” and “such claims are extraordinary.” Christian v. Wellington, 739
F.3d 294, 297 (6th Cir. 2014). Indeed, “although § 2241 establishes jurisdiction in the federal
courts to consider pretrial habeas corpus petitions, the courts should abstain from the exercise
of that jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on the
merits in the state courts or by other state procedures available to the petitioner.” Atkins v.
People of State of Mich., 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981).
As further explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in
Atkins:
Abstention from the exercise of the habeas corpus jurisdiction is justified by the
doctrine of comity, a recognition of the concurrent jurisdiction created by our
federal system of government in the separate state and national sovereignties.
Intrusion into state proceedings already underway is warranted only in
extraordinary circumstances. Thus the doctrine of exhaustion of state remedies
-2-
has developed to protect the state courts' opportunity to confront initially and
resolve constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions and to limit federal
judicial interference in state adjudicatory processes. This argument is
especially forceful in a situation involving a speedy trial claim, because the
drastic nature of the relief usually granted, dismissal of the case . . . could
not be more disruptive of pending state actions.
Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added). See also Gully v. Kunzman, 592 F.2d 283, 286 (6th
Cir. 1979) (acknowledging federal courts’ authority to consider a habeas corpus petition before
a judgment of conviction is entered, but noting that “considerations of federalism counsel
strongly against exercising the power except in the most extraordinary circumstances”).
Thus, “[p]rinciples of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from
deciding pre-conviction habeas challenges unless the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) he has
exhausted available state court remedies, and (2) ‘special circumstances’ warrant federal
intervention.” Brown v. Bolton, No. 3:09–cv–P513–S, 2010 WL 1408014 (W.D. Ky. April 1,
2010). Indeed, “[h]abeas petitioners must exhaust all available state court remedies before
proceeding in federal court, and this usually requires that they appeal an adverse decision all
the way to the state's court of last resort.” Phillips, 668 F.3d at 810. See also Fisher v. Rose,
757 F.2d 789, 792 (6th Cir. 1985) (noting that “exhaustion of state remedies is required in the
absence of unusual circumstances . . . and has often been required when a petitioner asserts in
a petition for a writ of habeas corpus prior to trial that his right to a speedy trial had been
violated.”) (citations omitted).
Here, although Walker checks a box on his petition indicating that he has exhausted all
judicial remedies with respect to the issues raised in his petition, he appears to be referring to
the motions filed in the Harlan Circuit Court seeking dismissal of the indictment and reduction
of his bond. [Record No. 1 at p. 4-5] He makes no indication that he has pursued his claims
-3-
further with the Kentucky Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Kentucky. Moreover, a
review of the online records for both courts indicates that no further requests for relief have
been filed by Walker with respect to either of his claims. See Office of the Clerk of the Appeals
Court of Kentucky, Case Information, http://apps.courts.ky.gov/Appeals/COA_Dockets.shtm
(last visited May 25, 2018); Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Kentucky, Supreme
Court Case Information, http://apps.courts.ky.gov/supreme/sc_dockets.shtm (last visited May
25, 2018).1 Thus, Walker does not appear to have exhausted his available state court remedies
with respect to his claims.
Likewise, the allegations of Walker’s petition do not suggest the existence of other
“special circumstances” that would warrant this Court’s intervention into Walker’s Kentucky
criminal proceedings. To the contrary, based on Walker’s submissions to this Court, it appears
that Walker is being represented by counsel in his Kentucky criminal case who appears to be
actively seeking dismissal of the charges against Walker and preserving Walker’s rights to a
speedy trial.
As outlined above, considerations of federalism and comity strongly counsel against
this Court’s intrusion into Walker’s Kentucky criminal proceedings. Thus, this Court will
abstain from exercising habeas jurisdiction over Walker’s claims and deny his § 2241 petition
without prejudice to afford him the opportunity to exhaust his remedies available through the
Kentucky court system prior to seeking federal habeas relief.
Accordingly, it is hereby
1
The Court “may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts of record.” Granader v.
Public Bank, 417 F.2d 75, 82-83 (6th Cir. 1969); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). Records
on government websites are self-authenticating. See Fed. R. Evid. 902(5).
-4-
ORDERED as follows:
1.
Walker’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[Record No. 1] is DENIED, without prejudice.
2.
This action is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court’s docket.
This 25th day of May, 2018.
-5-
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?