Riego v. Normand

Filing 16

ORDER AND REASONS - petitioner Raymond Riego, Jr.'s habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. Additionally, because petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).. Signed by Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance on 12/19/14. (jjs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
RAYMOND A. RIEGO, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO: 14-1804

NEWELL NORMAN, SHERIFF
JEFFERSON PARISH

SECTION: R(5)

ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is Raymond Riego's petition for federal
habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner is a

pretrial detainee awaiting trial in Louisiana state court for one
count of second-degree murder.

Petitioner asks this Court to

dismiss the state criminal proceedings because of an alleged defect
in the state's bill of information.

Specifically, petitioner

contends that the bill of information is defective because it
contains the wrong date for the alleged murder.1
Petitioner's challenge to the validity of the pending state
criminal charges is not cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Absent

"special circumstances," federal habeas corpus is not available to
pre-trial

detainees

proceedings.

seeking

dismissal

of

state

criminal

Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S.

484, 493 (1973) (holding that federal habeas proceedings do not
allow "the derailing of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to
litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court").
In other words, "a federal court may generally consider a habeas
1

R. Doc. 1 at 7.

petition for pretrial relief from a state court only when the
accused does not seek a dismissal of the state court charges
pending against him."

Greer v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 693 F.

Supp. 502, 508 (E.D. La. 1988).

Here, petitioner seeks dismissal

of the state court proceedings and fails to identify any "special
circumstances"
process.2

to

warrant

disruption

of

the

state's

judicial

Thus, the relief petitioner requests is simply not

available in this proceeding.
To the extent that petitioner seeks alternative relief, the
Court is bound by the Louisiana Supreme Court's determination that
the indictment is proper. The sufficiency of a state indictment is
not grounds for federal habeas relief unless it can be shown that
the

indictment

jurisdiction.

is

so

defective

that

the

state

court

lacks

Rick v. Cain, CIV. A. No. 12-1617, 2013 WL 6388641,

at *9 (E.D. La. Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Liner v. Phelps, 731 F.2d
1201, 1203 (5th Cir. 1984)).

This determination "can be made only

by looking to the law of the state where the indictment was
issued."

Liner, 731 F.2d at 1203 (emphasis in original).

Thus, a

federal court will not consider such a claim when the highest court
of the state has addressed the sufficiency of the indictment and
finds that the trial court has jurisdiction.

2

Evans v. Cain, 577

In his petition, Riego asks the Court to (1) prevent the
state from prosecuting him for second-degree murder, (2) release
him from custody, and (3) instruct the state court to quash the
indictment. R. Doc. 1 at 8.
2

F.3d 620, 624 (5th Cir. 2009) ("[W]hen it appears . . . that the
sufficiency of the indictment was squarely presented to the highest
court of the state on appeal, and that court held that the trial
court had jurisdiction over the case, then the question as to
whether a state trial court was deprived of jurisdiction . . . [is]
foreclosed

to

a

federal

habeas

court.")

omitted).

Here, the Louisiana Supreme Court denied petitioner's

pro se challenge to the indictment.3

(internal

quotations

The Louisiana Supreme Court's

determination precludes this Court from considering petitioner's
argument.
For the foregoing reasons, petitioner's habeas corpus petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.

Additionally, because

petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of December, 2014.

SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

R. Doc. 11-1.
3