Harrington v. Circuit Court of Winston County

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM OPINION re 7 FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 11/26/13. (cr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
TONY R. HARRINGTON

PETITIONER

v.

No. 1:13CV159-A-A

CIRCUIT COURT OF WINSTON COUNTY

RESPONDENTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter comes before the court on the pro se petition of Tony R. Harrington for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The State has moved to dismiss the petition for failure to state
a claim upon which relief could be granted. Harrington has not responded, and the deadline for
response has expired. The matter is ripe for resolution. For the reasons set forth below, the State’s
motion will be granted and the petition dismissed for failure to state a constitutional claim.
Facts and Procedural Posture
Tony R. Harrington is currently incarcerated in the Winston Choctaw County Regional
Correctional Facility in Louisville, Mississippi as a pre-trial detainee. Harrington was charged with
ASale of Amphetamine: a Schedule II Controlled Substance@ by way of an indictment from the Circuit
Court of Winston County, Mississippi, which was stamped as Afiled@ on September 26, 2012, and
docketed on April 30, 2013 in Cause No. 2013-CR-046. Harrington=s trial on the charge at issue was
continued until the October 2013 term of court by Order filed May 16, 2013, on the motion filed by
Harrington=s counsel. According to the Winston County Circuit Clerk=s Office, the new term of court
begian in October, and Harrington=s case will be set for trial in this term absent any additional
continuances.
Harrington lists his various complaints under Ground One, which include his contention that
there was no valid warrant, no lawyer with him in the trial court, no response from his probation

officer, no case number assigned to his case, no NCIC report and that his case was not on the docket
for three (3) months. ECF Doc. 1, p. 6. Harrington’s prayer for relief is that the court A[consider] the
grounds of my [due] process [of] law [claim] and if those grounds have been violated[,] I wish to act
on them with civil and disciplinary actions and have all charges dropped on me.@ ECF Doc. 1, p. 8.
Discussion
A pre-trial detainee has a right to seek federal habeas relief. Id., 410 U.S. at 488-89. Braden
v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123 (1973). The Braden Court
reiterated, however, Afederal habeas corpus does not lie, absent >special circumstances,= to adjudicate
the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a
state court.@ Id. at 489. A petitioner is not permitted to derail Aa pending state proceeding by an
attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court.@ Id. at 493. In addition, there
is Aan important distinction between a petitioner who seeks to >abort a state proceeding or to disrupt
the orderly functioning of state judicial processes= by litigating a speedy trial defense to a prosecution
prior to trial, and one who seeks only to enforce the state=s obligation to bring him promptly to trial.@
Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d at 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976). A prisoner who asserts a pretrial habeas
corpus petition is usually making:
[A]n attempt to dismiss an indictment or otherwise prevent a prosecution . . . . [or] an
attempt to force the state to go to trial . . . . While the former objective is normally not
attainable through federal habeas corpus, the latter is, although the requirement of
exhaustion of state remedies still must be met.
Id. (emphasis added). AIn other words, a federal court may generally consider a habeas petition for
pretrial relief from a state court only when the accused does not seek a dismissal of the state court
charges pending against him.@ Greer v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 693 F. Supp. 502, 508 (E.D. La.
1988). If, as in the instant case, a petitioner is attempting to prevent the prosecution of his case, then
-2-

he is seeking to Aabort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of state judicial
processes.@ Brown, 530 F.2d at 1282-83; Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
In the instant petition, Harrington requests that the court drop all charges against him. Such a
request cannot be achieved through federal habeas corpus. Brown, 530 F.2d at 1283. As such,
Harrington=s request for habeas corpus relief is not an available remedy based on the allegations of the
instant petition, absent Aspecial circumstances.@ See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 227 (citations omitted).
The Fifth Circuit broached this Aspecial circumstance@ issue in Dickerson and declined to accept the
petitioner=s analysis that the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was a per se Aspecial
circumstance.@ The court reasoned that Ato do so would eliminate the careful distinction drawn by the
court in Braden and reiterated in cases like Brown and Atkins [v. People of State of Mich., 644 F.2d
543, 546-47 (6th Cir. 1981)] between a defendant disrupting the orderly functioning of a state=s judicial
processes as opposed to enforcing his right to have the state bring him promptly to trial.@ Id.
Harrington does not argue any Aspecial circumstances@ to warrant disruption of the state=s judicial
process. Harrington=s trial will be scheduled during the October term of the Winston County Circuit
Court. As such, the instant petition will be be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which habeas relief may be granted. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will
issue today.

SO ORDERED, this, the 26th day of November, 2013.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-