Barraza Rojas v. Fred et al
Filing
7
Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered. The petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. The motion 2 for counsel shall be terminated as moot. The court certifies that an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). (jm)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 24-12855-RGS
JESUS ADRIAN BARRAZA-ROJAS
v.
WARDEN F.J. BOWERS, et al.
ORDER
January 29, 2025
STEARNS, D.J.
Pro se petitioner Jesus Adrian Barraza-Rojas, who is confined at FMC
Devens, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and a motion for
appointment of counsel. For the reasons set forth below, the court DENIES
the petition and DISMISSES this action. 1
Barraza-Rojas is confined at FMC Devens for the purpose of
undergoing an evaluation of his competency to stand trial in United States v.
The court recognizes that Barraza-Rojas has not had a full opportunity to
respond to the government’s January 17, 2025 response to the petition, Dkt
#6. However, in light of the court’s authority to dismiss a habeas petition
without even requiring a response from the respondent, see Rule 4 of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
(applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 cases pursuant to Rule 1(a)); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2243, this dismissal is not premature.
1
Jesus Adrian Barraza-Rojas, Crim. No. 3:23-01683 (W.D. Tex.), in which he
is charged with illegal reentry. Barraza-Rojas is not clear in his lengthy
petition why he believes this confinement is in violation of federal law, but
the nature of his argument is irrelevant to the disposition of this action.
Habeas corpus is 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). Here, habeas corpus is not the only remedy available to BarrazaRojas. He may raise all the matters addressed in his petition with the judicial
officer presiding over the pending criminal action. See Jones v. Perkins, 245
U.S. 390, 391-92 (1918) (stating that “[i]t is well settled that in the absence
of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure
should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a
trial”); Whitmer v. Levi, 276 Fed. App’x 217, 219 (3d Cir. 2008) (per curiam)
(“[Petitioner]’s claims relating to pending criminal charges should have been
raised in his criminal case, not a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241”);
Garey v. Fed. Det. Ctr., 180 Fed. App’x 118, 121 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam)
(affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition because petitioner’s claims “should
have been raised in his pending criminal case”). Whether defense counsel
deems it appropriate to raise in the criminal action the matters BarrazaRojas discusses in his petition is not a matter for the undersigned.
2
Accordingly, the petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
The motion for counsel shall be terminated as moot. The court certifies that
an appeal of this order would not be taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court
certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Richard G. Stearns
__________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?