Maynard v. Bolton
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION by Senior Judge Thomas B. Russell on 4/10/2018. A separate order will enter.cc: Petitioner, pro se, Respondent, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of Criminal Appeals, 1024 Capital Center Drive,Frankfort, KY 40601 (KJA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
TIMOTHY DEWAYNE MAYNARD
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-CV-P107-TBR
MARK BOLTON, DIRECTOR
Petitioner Timothy DeWayne Maynard filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition is before the Court on preliminary review pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to determine whether “it plainly appears from
the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.”1 If the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the petition must be summarily dismissed. For
the reasons that follow, the Court will summarily dismiss the § 2241 petition.
Petitioner indicates that he has been incarcerated as a pretrial detainee at the Louisville
Metro Department of Corrections (LMDC) since March 19, 2017, for the alleged offense of
“Assault 1st Degree,” Jefferson Circuit Court Case No. 17-CR-1380. He alleges Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendment due process violations.2
First, Petitioner claims that the alleged victim “gives 3 Audio interviews with
Approximately 8 different versions of what he says happened. No two versions the same.
Rule 4 applies to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases.
In the petition (DN 1), Petitioner alleges a violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, but in a
subsequent filing (DN 6), he indicates that he wants to amend the petition to state “violation of my 14th
and fifth Amendment Rights.”
Because no two are the same, petitioner alleges they can’t all Be true.” He further claims that
“no evidence in the Discovery backs [the alleged victim’s] versions of events.”
Second, Petitioner alleges that “LMPD & Detectives willingly allowed Petitioner to
become intoxicated knowing he would have to be interviewed and mirandaized at some point.”
He claims that he was interviewed three times with the “first 2 times on crime scene with no
miranda warning after he’s allowed to get drunk and then the 3rd Questioning Directly after the
1st two but taken at Police HQ’s while Drunk and then with a miranda warning.”
As relief, Petitioner seeks (1) immediate release from incarceration; (2) “[a] court order
Demanding an answer on each ground from the Jefferson Circuit Court 7th Division”;
(3) dismissal of state charges with prejudice; and (4) judicial review of his case “because of the
false statements given to the Commonwealth Attorney and used by the Commonwealth Attorney
to deprive me of my Liberty.”
A petitioner may bring a § 2241 habeas action in federal court to demand enforcement of
the state’s affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to trial, but may not
generally seek habeas relief to forestall state prosecution altogether. See Braden v. 30th Judicial
Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-91 (1973); Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 (10th
Cir. 1993). 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. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th
Cir. 1981). Principles 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. See
Martin-Trigona v. Shiff, 702 F.2d 380, 388 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[T]he writ of habeas corpus is not a
substitute for a regular route of appeal.”); see also Bronston v. Sabbatine, No. 93-5648, 1993 WL
473792, at *1 (6th Cir. Nov. 16, 1993); Moore v. Federspiel, No. 2:09-CV-12673, 2009 WL
2170168, at *1-2 (E.D. Mich. July 20, 2009).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has found the three following exceptions to the
prohibition against the federal court’s consideration of a pretrial § 2241 habeas petition:
(1) when a petitioner seeks a speedy trial, see Atkins, 644 F.2d at 546-47; (2) when a petitioner
seeks to avoid a second trial on the grounds of double jeopardy, see Delk v. Atkinson, 665 F.2d
90, 93 (6th Cir. 1981); and (3) when a petitioner faces prejudice from prior ineffective assistance
of counsel and due process violations on retrial, Turner v. Tennessee, 858 F.2d 1201, 1204
(6th Cir. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 492 U.S. 902 (1989). None of these exceptions is
present here. Even if the Court could consider Petitioner’s claims, Petitioner fails to demonstrate
exhaustion of available state court remedies,3 and he can still present any constitutional claims
during the course of his criminal trial, on direct appeal, and, if applicable, through a properly
filed state collateral attack. See, e.g., Thacker v. Rees, No. 86-5973, 1988 WL 19179, at *6
(6th Cir. Mar. 8, 1988) (“Under Kentucky law, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are to
be addressed initially to the trial court through an RCr 11.42 motion.”).
While Petitioner checkmarks “Yes” to a question of whether he exhausted available administrative or
judicial remedies, he indicates that he did not appeal any decision for the following reasons: “My public
Defender was working with the court and was/has been in-effective for me. I asked her to step off my
case so that another public defender could take my case which was granted on 15 Dec. 2017 by the same
judge and the same court . . . . Further, I’m a pretrial Detainee.”
To rule on the merits of the petition at this time would undermine the legitimate interests
of federalism by “derail[ing] . . . a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate
constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 493. Accordingly, the
Court will dismiss the § 2241 petition as premature.
Before Petitioner may appeal this Court’s decision, a certificate of appealability must
issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability (COA)
may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).
“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, . . . [t]he
petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of
the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. When, however, “the
district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of
a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court
was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id. “Where a plain procedural bar is present and the
district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude
either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be
allowed to proceed further.” Id. In such a case, no appeal is warranted. Id.
The Court is satisfied in the instant case that no jurists of reason could find its ruling to be
debatable or wrong. Thus, a COA is not warranted.
The Court will enter an Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.
April 10, 2018
Petitioner, pro se
Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Office of Criminal Appeals, 1024 Capital Center Drive,
Frankfort, KY 40601
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?