Brooks v. Unknown Party #1 et al

Filing 10

OPINION ; signed by Judge Robert Holmes Bell (Judge Robert Holmes Bell, kcb)

U N IT E D STATES OF AMERICA U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN S O U T H E R N DIVISION

EDWIN BROOKS, P e ti t i o n e r , v. UNKNOWN PARTY #1 et al., Respondents. ____________________________________/ O P IN IO N T h is is a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Promptly after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a p re lim in a ry review of the petition to determine whether "it plainly appears from the face of the p e titio n and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." R u le 4, RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES1; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must be s u m m a rily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court h a s the duty to "screen out" petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under Rule 4 in c lu d e s those petitions which raise legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual a lle ga tio n s that are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1 9 9 9 ) . After undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court concludes that the petition must C a s e No. 1:08-cv-770 H o n o ra b le Robert Holmes Bell

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases may be applied to a habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Rule 1(b), RULES GOVERNING § 2254 CASES.

1

b e dismissed without prejudice because it is premature. The Court further concludes that it is proper to dismiss the supplement and the amended complaint without prejudice. Discussion I. Fa c tu a l Allegations

P e titio n e r is currently a pretrial detainee at the Berrien County Jail in St. Joseph, M ic h iga n , awaiting trial on unspecified charges. In his petition, Petitioner asserts that Respondents " m y attorney," "the states attorney [sic]," "the judge," "the lead detective," and Detective Frederick L a e sc h are conspiring against Petitioner to bring false charges in a "bogus case." (Pet. at 1, docket # 1 ; Supp. at 3, docket #6.) Petitioner asserts that the Judge will not allow Petitioner to fire his a tto rn e y, that Respondents did not have enough information or evidence to pursue a prosecution and th a t the testimony of the witnesses was false. (Pet. at 3.) Petitioner requests to be released from jail a n d have Respondents "held accountable for their actions." (Id.) In a supplement (docket #6), Petitioner stated that he wishes to file additional charges a ga in st Deputy Juan Mata for tampering with his mail. (Supp. at 1.) P e titio n e r then filed an "amended complaint" alleging a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1 9 8 3 against eight new "Defendants." (Am. Compl. at 1-3, docket #9.) Petitioner's amended c o m p l a i n t sets forth similar facts as those outlined in his habeas petition as well as additional a lle ga tio n s against the named Defendants. Petitioner requests "dismissal of case no. 2008411724," " a ll evidence and/or information directly or indirectly related to the illegal search and seizure of [his] re sid e n c e thrown out," and compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $5,920,000.00. (A m . Compl. at 5.)

-2-

II.

H a b e a s Action is Premature

P e titio n e r has not yet been convicted by a state court and his application for habeas relief m u s t be dismissed because it is premature. Although section 2241 gives the federal courts ju r is d ic tio n to consider pretrial habeas corpus petitions, "the courts should abstain from the exercise o f that jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on the merits in th e state courts or by other state procedures available to the petitioner." Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2 d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981). "Intrusion into state proceedings already underway is warranted only in extraordinary circumstances." Id. Federal habeas corpus relief is only available to review the m e rits of a state criminal charge prior to a judgment or conviction by a state court in "special c irc u m s ta n c e s ." Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). The S ix th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that a federal court may consider a pretrial habeas corpus p e titio n when the petitioner seeks a speedy trial and has exhausted available state court remedies, A tk in s, 644 F.2d at 546-47, seeks to avoid a second trial on the grounds of double jeopardy, Delk v . Atkinson, 665 F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir.1981); see also Justices of Boston Mun. Court v. Lydon, 466 U .S . 294, 300-03 (1984), or faces prejudice from prior ineffective assistance of counsel and due p ro c e ss violations on retrial, Turner v. Tennessee, 858 F.2d 1201, 1204 (6th Cir.1988), vacated on o th e r grounds, 492 U.S. 902 (1989). None of the aforementioned exceptions fits the present case. R a th e r, Petitioner seeks to challenge the substantive merit of the criminal charges now pending a ga in st him. Pretrial habeas corpus is simply unavailable for such a challenge. Additionally, Petitioner has not alleged that he has exhausted his state court remedies. T h e federal courts have developed a common-law doctrine of exhaustion to protect the opportunity o f the state courts to resolve constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions and to limit -3-

fe d e ra l interference in the state criminal process. Atkins, 644 F.2d at 546. The practical effect of th is exhaustion requirement is that review of dispositive claims by habeas petition is not available b e fo re a state trial and appeal of the final judgment at every level of the state-court system. See, e.g., A d a m s v. Michigan, No. 1:06-cv-785, 2006 WL 3542645, at *1 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2006); Frazier v . Michigan, No. 06-cv-11624, 2006 WL 1156438, at * 1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 28, 2006); Van Durmen v . Jones, No. 4:02-cv-184, 2006 WL 322486, at * 2 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 10, 2006). Petitioner's claims m a y be resolved at his trial or upon appeal of the final judgment to the state courts. Accordingly, th e filing of Petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief was premature and will be dismissed. III. S u p p le m e n t and Amended Complaint

T h e supplement (docket #6) and amended complaint (docket #9) improperly seek to a d d civil rights claims to Petitioner's application for habeas relief. Petitioner's original filing in this c a se clearly stated that it was `re[garding]: petition for writ of habeas corpus" and it was treated as s u c h . (Pet. at 1.) A civil rights action challenging the legal and factual basis for a criminal p ro s e c u tio n cannot be maintained unless and until the plaintiff has prevailed in setting aside his c o n vic tio n on appeal or collateral review. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). T h e re fo re , even though Petitioner's pleading is deemed amended as of right, FED. R. CIV. P. 1 5 (a )(1 ), the amendment does state a claim. Petitioner cannot allege civil rights violations

s u r r o u n d i n g his prosecution, until the state court prosecution has terminated in his favor. P e titio n e r 's supplement and amended complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. If Petitioner w is h e s to proceed with the civil rights claims that do not call into question the validity of the p ro se c u tio n , he may raise his potential civil rights claims properly in a § 1983 action.

-4-

C o n c lu s i o n In light of the foregoing, the Court will summarily dismiss Petitioner's application w ith o u t prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 because it is premature. The Court will also dismiss the su p p le m e n t and the amended complaint without prejudice. Certificate of Appealability U n d e r 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), the Court must determine whether a certificate of a p p e a la b ility should be granted. A certificate should issue if Petitioner has demonstrated a

" s u b s ta n tia l showing of a denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This Court's d is m is s a l of Petitioner's action under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases is a determination t h a t the habeas action, on its face, lacks sufficient merit to warrant service. It would be highly u n lik e ly for this Court to grant a certificate, thus indicating to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals that a n issue merits review, when the Court has already determined that the action is so lacking in merit th a t service is not warranted. See Love v. Butler, 952 F.2d 10 (1st Cir. 1991) (it is "somewhat a n o m a lo u s " for the court to summarily dismiss under Rule 4 and grant a certificate); Hendricks v. V a s q u e z , 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990) (requiring reversal where court summarily dismissed under R u le 4 but granted certificate); Dory v. Comm'r of Corr. of the State of New York, 865 F.2d 44, 46 (2 d Cir. 1989) (it was "intrinsically contradictory" to grant a certificate when habeas action does not w a rr a n t service under Rule 4); Williams v. Kullman, 722 F.2d 1048, 1050 n.1 (2d Cir. 1983) (issuing c e rtific a te would be inconsistent with a summary dismissal). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has disapproved issuance of blanket denials of a certificate of appealability. Murphy v. Ohio, 263 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather, the district c o u r t must "engage in a reasoned assessment of each claim" to determine whether a certificate is

-5-

w a rra n te d . Id. at 467. Each issue must be considered under the standards set forth by the Supreme C o u rt in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000). Murphy, 263 F.3d at 467. Consequently, this C o u r t has examined each of Petitioner's claims under the Slack standard. T h is Court denied Petitioner's application because it is premature. Under Slack, 529 U .S . at 484, when a habeas petition is denied on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability m a y issue only "when the prisoner shows, at least, [1] that jurists of reason would find it debatable w h e th e r the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that jurists of re a s o n would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Both sh o w in gs must be made to warrant the grant of a certificate. Id. The Court finds that reasonable ju ris t s could not debate that this Court correctly dismissed the petition on the procedural grounds o f lack of exhaustion. "Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to in v o k e it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court e rre d in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further." Id. T h e re fo re , the Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. A Judgment consistent with this Opinion will be entered.

D a te d : O c to b e r 22, 2008

/s/ Robert Holmes Bell ROBERT HOLMES BELL U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-