Reid v. Grondolsky

Filing 16

Judge Indira Talwani: ORDER entered. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All motions shall be terminated as moot. The Clerk shall dismiss this action.(PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
ELDRED L. REID,
Petitioner,
v.

Civil Action No. 16-cv-12319-IT

JEFF GRONDOLSKY, FMC,
Respondent.
ORDER
April 11, 2017
TALWANI, D.J.
Eldred L. Reid filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking
that the pending criminal charges against him be dismissed or that he be released on bail. He also
complains about certain conditions of confinement. Because it appears from the petition and
exhibits submitted by Reid that he is not entitled to habeas relief in this court, the court denies
the petition without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (providing that, if “it appears from the
application [for a writ of habeas corpus] that the applicant . . . is not entitled [to the writ],” the
district court is not required to serve the petition on the respondent).
A habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may be brought if a person is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A
writ of habeas corpus is, however, an extraordinary remedy that is generally available only in the
absence of any other remedy. See Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951). Thus, where a federal
pretrial detainee seeks to challenge the fact of his confinement based on alleged illegalities or
infirmities in a pending prosecution against him, his remedy is to raise those matters in the
criminal proceeding, not in a separate habeas action. See, e.g., Garcon v. Palm Beach County
Sheriff’s Office, 291 Fed. Appx. 225, 226 (11th Cir. 2008) (holding federal pretrial detainee’s

petition premature where claims he asserts “are properly brought during his criminal case and
subsequent direct appeal, should he choose to file one”); Morrow v. Terrell, 715 F. Supp. 2d 479,
480 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Because the issues that [the federal pretrial detainee] raises, if resolved in
his favor, would be dispositive of the underlying criminal charges for which he has been
indicted, he must exhaust his claims at trial and on direct appeal before he can assert them in a
habeas action.”). “To allow petitioner to bring the same claims before another judge in a
collateral proceeding would not only waste judicial resources, but would encourage judge
shopping.” Chandler v. Pratt, 96 Fed. Appx. 661, 662 (10th Cir. 2004) (not selected for
publication). Petitioner was previously so advised when he filed a previous habeas petition in the
Western District of Missouri. Petition, Exhibit 10 (Order) [#1-10] (instructing Reid that
challenges to detention must be filed in his pending criminal case).
To the extent that Reid wishes to bring claims about the conditions of his confinement
while in the District of Massachusetts, a habeas petition is not the proper procedure. He may file
a new, non-habeas civil action in this court, see Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004),
with the appropriate filing fee. 1
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. All motions shall be terminated as moot. The Clerk shall dismiss this action.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ Indira Talwani
Indira Talwani
United States District Judge

1

The fee for filing a non-habeas civil action is $400. If a prisoner is allowed to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, he will be required to pay a $350 filing fee over time, regardless of
the outcome of the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).

2