Diawara v. State Of Maryland

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/31/2014. (c/m 7/31/2014 aos, Deputy Clerk)

!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

i-

I

*

MAMADAU DIAWARA,

*

v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. GJH-14-2397

*

STATE OF MARYLAND,

******
MEMORANDUM

J

.

Self-represented petitioner, Mamadau Diawara filed the instant petition for writ of habeas
corpus challenging his confinement

in the Baltimore City Detention Center.

ECF NO.1.

Petitioner has neither paid the filing fee, nor moved for leave to proceed in pauperis, however,
because he appears indigent, he shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the
reasons that follow, the petition will be denied without prejudice as unexhausted.
Maryland Case Judiciary Research indicates that petitioner has been charged with second
degree rape, third and fourth degree sexual offenses, and assault in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City. His trial is scheduled for September 24,2014.1
Pretrial federal habeas relief is available under 28 U.S.c. S2241 if the petitioner is in
custody,

has exhausted

state court remedies,

and special circumstances

exist that justify

intervention by the federal court. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F. 2d 220,224-

26 (5th Cir.

1987). Exhaustion is established where both the operative facts and controlling legal principles
of each claim have been fairly presented to the state courts. See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d
276, 289 (4th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).

In the pretrial context, federal courts must abstain

from exercising jurisdiction over a claim that may be resolved through trial of the merits or by
other state procedures available for review of the claim. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973).
I

See Maryland Case Judiciary Research at http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiry-index.jsp

Special circumstances justifying this court's intervention do not exist where there are
procedures in place to protect petitioner's constitutional rights. See Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.
2d 437, 449 (3d Cir. 1975) (assertion of appropriate defense at trial forecloses pretrial federal
habeas relief); Drayton v. Hayes, 589 F. 2d 117, 120-21 (2d Cir. 1979) (double jeopardy claim
justified

pretrial federal habeas intervention

because constitutional

right claimed would be

violated if petitioner went to trial); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The alleged
errors raised by petitioner in the instant case, which include, among other things, claims of denial
of the right to a speedy trial and complaints regarding the performance of defense counsel, may
be addressed by the trial court. Thus, the petition must be dismissed without prejudice.
A separate order follows.

7/30olt(

Date

Lt----:A-

George Jarrod Hazel
United States District Judge

2