Zaki v. United States of America
Filing
3
OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Without Prejudice. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (Monda, H)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
SCOTT ZAKI,
Case No. 14-cv-13511
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Scott Zaki, currently confined at the St. Clair County Intervention and
Detention Center in Port Huron, Michigan, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his ongoing federal
criminal prosecution, United States v. Zaki, No. 14-cr-20281, which is presently
pending before the Honorable Victoria A. Roberts in this Court. Petitioner is
represented by counsel in that proceeding. In the petition, he argues that the
indictment issued by the grand jury is deficient. He seeks release from custody and
dismissal of the indictment.
I.
Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, provides that the court shall
promptly examine a petition to determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” If the
court determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the court shall
summarily dismiss the petition. 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”). The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases
may be applied at the discretion of the district court judge to petitions not filed
under § 2254. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because the
claims raised in the petition are not properly raised in a § 2241 petition at this time,
the Court will dismiss the proceeding without prejudice.
II.
Petitioner was indicted on May 15, 2014, with a charge of conspiracy to
possess with intent to distribute methylone, 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1) &
841(b)(1)(C). The criminal trial is scheduled to commence on January 20, 2015.
Petitioner argues that the indictment is based upon a factually insufficient affidavit
and he seeks habeas relief on that basis.
2
This is the second § 2241 habeas petition filed by Petitioner in the span of
two months. The first petition, assigned to the Honorable Thomas L. Ludington,
concerned the same criminal proceeding at issue in the pending petition and raised
essentially the same claim raised in this petition. That petition was summarily
dismissed pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, because:
[I]t is well established that a criminal defendant cannot file a petition
for writ of habeas corpus to raise defenses to a pending federal
criminal prosecution. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1981)
(“It 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.”) . . .
Petitioner’s claim that the indictment is defective would be dispositive
of his pending federal criminal charge and must be exhausted at trial
and on appeal in the federal courts before habeas corpus relief would
be available. See Sandles v. Hemingway, 22 F. App’x 557 (6th Cir.
2001). Petitioner therefore cannot challenge his pending federal
prosecution in his current habeas petition.
Zaki v. United States, No. 14-12884, 2014 WL 4315044 *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 2,
2014).
The posture of the criminal case has not changed since Judge Ludington
summarily dismissed Petitioner’s first petition. The charges remain pending and
Petitioner awaits trial. Therefore, for the same reasons Petitioner’s previous §
2241 petition was dismissed, the Court dismisses the present petition. Because the
claim raised in the petition will not be decided on the merits, the Court’s dismissal
of this action should not prejudice Petitioner’s ability to raise his claim in an
3
appropriate setting, e.g., in his criminal case. The dismissal, accordingly, will be
without prejudice.
III.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
/s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: October 1, 2014
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties
and/or counsel of record on October 1, 2014, by electronic means and/or ordinary
mail.
s/Holly A. Monda
Case Manager
(313) 234-5113
4
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?