DOWNIE v. STATE OF MAINE

Filing 2

REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint, filed by JAFFAR DOWNIE. Objections to R&R due by 5/29/2018. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JAFFAR DOWNIE,
Petitioner,
v.

STATE OF MAINE,
Respondent

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:18-cv-00187-DBH

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON HABEAS PETITION
In this action, Petitioner Jaffar Downie seeks habeas relief from pretrial detention.
(Petition, ECF No. 1.)
Following a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, I recommend the Court dismiss the
petition without prejudice.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
According to the petition, Petitioner entered state custody on criminal charges on
October 3, 2017, and was in custody at the York County Jail when he filed the petition.
(Petition at 1.) Insofar as Petitioner alleges that the State has failed to prosecute, and that
he has made a speedy trial request, Petitioner is evidently a pretrial detainee. (Id.)
He alleges that “bail is $1500 but the courts aren’t hearing bail arguments because of
terrible counsel . . . .” (Id.) Petitioner requests release from his pretrial detention. (Id.)

DISCUSSION
Although this Court docketed Petitioner’s request for habeas relief as filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, courts have held that jurisdiction under § 2254 is limited to
post-conviction detention, and that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the relevant statute for challenging
the constitutionality of pretrial detention.1 See, e.g., Hartfield v. Osborne, 808 F.3d 1066,
1071 (5th Cir. 2015); Klein v. Leis, 548 F.3d 425, 430 n.4 (6th Cir. 2008). Therefore, for
purposes of this recommended decision, Petitioner’s request for relief from pretrial
detention is construed as having been filed pursuant to section 2241.2
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, when a prisoner asserts a claim against a
governmental entity, a court must “identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or
any portion of the complaint, if the complaint . . . is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Similarly, a federal
district court must dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, Rules 1(b)
(authorizing the application of section 2254 rules to other habeas actions) and 4 (requiring
dismissal “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides in relevant part: “The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
1

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides: “The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a
district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody
pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
Because Petitioner’s filing is construed as a section 2241 filing, rather than a section 2254 filing, the notice
required by Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), is not applicable.
2

2

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”); McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849,
856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face . . . .”).
To the extent Petitioner seeks to assert a habeas corpus petition to secure his release
from pretrial detention, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), mandates abstention from
the exercise of jurisdiction when a petitioner seeks relief in federal court from ongoing
state criminal proceedings. See Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 78
(2013) (noting that Younger “preclude[s] federal intrusion into ongoing state criminal
prosecutions”); In re Justices of Superior Court Dept. of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 16
(1st Cir. 2000) (“The federal courts have long recognized the ‘fundamental policy against
federal interference with state criminal proceedings.’” (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 46)).
Under Younger, federal courts must abstain from interfering in state court proceedings
“when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable
injury if denied equitable relief.” 401 U.S. at 43-44.
The elements of mandatory abstention consist of the following: “(1) the [state]
proceedings are judicial (as opposed to legislative) in nature; (2) they implicate important
state interests; and (3) they provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal constitutional
challenges.” Bettencourt v. Bd. of Registration in Med. of Commonwealth of Mass.,
904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir. 1990).
The criminal proceedings alleged in the petition are judicial in nature, implicate
important state interests associated with the State’s administration of its laws, afford
Petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise federal constitutional challenges, and allow
3

Petitioner to advocate for pretrial release on the same grounds he would cite in this Court.
Abstention, therefore, is presumptively appropriate. Indeed, “[c]ourts have consistently
applied the Younger doctrine to dismiss habeas claims by pretrial detainees based on
excessive bail, claims of actual innocence, or due process violations, absent bad faith,
harassment, or [other] extraordinary circumstances.” Enwonwu v. Mass. Superior Court,
Fall River, No. 1:12-cv-10703-DJC, 2012 WL 1802056, at *3 n. 7, 2012 U.S. Dist.
Lexis 68192, at *9-10 n.7 (D. Mass. May 16, 2012).
In this case, Petitioner has not alleged any facts that would constitute the
extraordinary circumstances necessary to overcome the presumption for abstention.
Accordingly, abstention is appropriate in this case.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, an evidentiary hearing is not warranted under Rule 8 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and I recommend the Court dismiss without
prejudice Petitioner’s motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and that the Court
deny a certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases because there is no substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right within
the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen

4

(14) days of being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court's order.

/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 14th day of May, 2018

5