Drumgoole v. State's Attorney et al

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Paula Xinis on 4/6/2018. (c/m 4/6/2018 aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

RAYMOND DRUMGOOLE, #453219
Petitioner,
v.

*

STATE’S ATTORNEY STEPHANIE
MALCOLM
WARDEN RICKY FOXWELL
Respondents.

*

*

CIVIL ACTION NO. PX-18-167

*
*****

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On January 18, 2018, this petition for habeas corpus was received for filing from
Raymond Drumgoole, a former Maryland inmate. Drumgoole challenges the legality of his
continuing Division of Correction (DOC) confinement,1 alleging that his January 2017
conviction was reversed by the Maryland intermediate appellate court and remanded to the
Circuit Court of Baltimore City on November 21, 2017. He argues that the time limitation under
state law to refile charges against him have expired and yet he remains “illegally confine[d] and
restrain[ed].” He seeks immediate release from confinement. ECF No. 1, pp. 2-7.
On January 22, 2018, Drumgoole’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
granted and respondents were ordered to answer the petition in 21 days.2 ECF No. 3.
Respondents have answered and Drumgoole has replied. ECF Nos. 5 & 6.

1

At the time Drumgoole filed his petition he was confined at the Eastern
Correctional Institution in Westover, Maryland.
2

On January 31, 2018, Drumgoole submitted a “supplement motion to habeas
corpus.” ECF No. 4. In this filing, Drumgoole raises no new grounds for relief; rather he takes
issue with this Court granting a 21-day extension to Respondents to file an answer. Good cause
existed to afford Respondents a 21-day extension, so any challenge to that decision is rejected.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

According to the verified record, on January 17, 2017, Circuit Court Judge David Young
sentenced Drumgoole to serve 10 years in the Division of Correction for possession of a
regulated firearm. Drumgoole further received a concurrent 10-year sentence for wearing or
carrying a handgun and possession of ammunition. ECF No. 5-2.3 On November 21, 2017, the
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland reversed the Circuit Court judgment and remanded the
case for further proceedings. ECF No. 5-3. On January 24, 2018, the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City issued an “order following remand” directing that Drumgoole be transferred from
DOC custody to the Baltimore City Detention Center, where he be held without bail, and to
appear for a determination of pre-trial release eligibility and arraignment on February 16, 2018.
ECF No. 5-4. The state court docket reveals that Drumgoole’s arraignment was held before
Circuit Court Judge Timothy Doory on February 16, 2018. See State v. Drumgoole, Case
Number 116215005 (Circuit Court for Baltimore City) at
http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/casesearch/inquiry-index.jsp. Drumgoole is currently
confined at the Baltimore Central Booking and Intake Facility. ECF No. 6-1.
This case was instituted as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which confers jurisdiction
on a district court to “entertain an application for 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
(emphasis added). Drumgoole is no longer in custody pursuant to a state court judgment; rather
he is currently in pre-trial custody awaiting retrial. Thus, he is no longer eligible for relief under
§ 2254.
3

All citations to exhibits reference pagination under the Court’s electronic
docketing system or CM/ECF.
2

Further, to the extent that Drumgoole filed his petition to challenge his continuing DOC
incarceration, the vacature of his conviction and transfer to pre-trial status renders his challenge
moot. Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). Where
subsequent changes in the Petitioner’s circumstances divest the court of the ability to award
meaningful relief, the case is moot. Ross v. Reed, 719 F.2d 689, 693-94 (4th Cir. 1983). Aragon
v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)).
Put differently, the parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the outcome” of the lawsuit
for it to proceed. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)). “This
means that, throughout the litigation, the complainant ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with,
an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477). Accordingly, to the extent
Drumgoole challenges the validity of his confinement in DOC custody, his removal from DOC
custody moots that challenge.
To the extent Drumgoole seeks federal court intervention as to his current pending
criminal charges, his § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief is likewise dismissed. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, a federal court must not interfere with ongoing state criminal
proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc.,
v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 50-53 (4th Cir. 1989) (district courts should abstain from constitutional
challenges to state judicial proceedings if the federal claims have been or could have been
presented in an ongoing state judicial proceeding). Abstention in favor of state judicial
proceedings is required where the state proceedings are ongoing, implicate important state
interests, afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions, and the federal relief

3

sought would interfere in some manner with the state court litigation presented. Middlesex
County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Brewsome v.
Broward County Pub. Defenders, 304 Fed. Appx. 814, 816 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). Each
of these requirements are met here.
Further, Drumgoole’s protestations to the contrary, relief via federal habeas corpus
proceedings with respect to a pre-trial state case is only available if a petitioner has exhausted
state court remedies and “special circumstances” justify federal review. See Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 226-29 (5th Cir. 1987). While the phrase “special circumstances”
lacks definition, courts consider whether procedures exist in state court to protect a petitioner’s
constitutional rights without pre-trial intervention. Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 449 (3d
Cir. 1975). Put differently, if petitioner’s rights are adequately protected through raising an
appropriate defense in state court, no special circumstances are shown. Id.; see also Drayton v.
Hayes, 589 F.2d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 1979) (double jeopardy claim entitled to pre-trial habeas
intervention since “the very constitutional right claimed . . . would be violated” if petitioner were
forced to go to trial). Where the right may be adequately preserved by orderly post-trial relief,
special circumstances are likewise nonexistent. Moore, 515 F.2d at 449.
Drumgoole has raised no exceptional circumstances for federal intervention. Any
constitutional deprivation, as alleged, may be raised state court. Accordingly, Drumgoole’s
petition is dismissed without prejudice.
When a district court dismisses a habeas petition solely on procedural grounds, a
Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both
“(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the

4

denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rouse v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.
2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). A litigant seeking a COA must
demonstrate that a procedural ruling barring relief is itself debatable among jurists of reason;
otherwise, the appeal would not “deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Buck v. Davis, 137
S. Ct. 759, 777 (2017). Because Drumgoole has not made the required showing, the Court
declines to issue a COA.

A separate Order follows.

Date: 4/6/18

/S/
Paula Xinis
United States District Judge

5