Ferguson v. State of Mississippi
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL Signed by District Judge Halil S. Ozerden on 7/2/2012 (wld)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JAMES M. FERGUSON, # 355942
VERSUS
PETITIONER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:12cv175-HSO-RHW
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
RESPONDENT
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
BEFORE THE COURT is pro se Petitioner James M. Ferguson’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus [1], pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is a pretrial detainee
at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center, awaiting trial in State court for
alleged aggravated domestic violence. He seeks dismissal of the State court
criminal proceedings. The Court has considered and liberally construed the
pleadings. For the reasons set forth below, this case should be dismissed.
I.
BACKGROUND
Ferguson alleges that he was arrested in April 2011, on a charge of
aggravated domestic violence against his girlfriend. Specifically, the indictment
accuses him of stabbing her. He is currently detained and awaiting trial, which is
scheduled for August 2012. He complains, among other things, that he has not had
a preliminary hearing and that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges.
He also appears to complain that his State court appointed attorney would not ask
for bond and wants Ferguson to plea bargain. He asks this Court to order the State
court to release him and dismiss the indictment.
II.
DISCUSSION
Ferguson seeks dismissal of the aggravated domestic violence charge on
grounds that there is no evidence he used a knife, and he was denied a preliminary
hearing. He also feels his attorney is ineffective. Absent “special circumstances,”
federal habeas corpus is not available “to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative
defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state
court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). An
exception is drawn based on the type of relief sought by the petitioner. Brown v.
Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1282-83 (5th Cir. 1976). The distinction is “between a
petitioner who seeks to ‘abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly
functioning of state judicial process’ by litigating a . . . defense . . . prior to trial, and
one who seeks only to enforce the state’s obligation to bring him promptly to trial.”
Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 226 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting Brown, 530 F.2d
at 1283). This Court is without authority to abort the State criminal trial.
Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 226. On the other hand, 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.”
Green v. St. Tammany Parish Jail, 693 F. Supp. 502, 508 (E.D. La. 1988).
Ferguson asks that he be released and that the State indictment be
dismissed. He does not seek to enforce any procedures allegedly due him. Since
federal habeas corpus is not available to abort the State trial here, this case should
2
be dismissed without prejudice.
II.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that, for the
foregoing reasons, this case should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A
separate final judgment shall issue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED, this the 2nd day of July, 2012.
s/
Halil Suleyman Ozerden
HALIL SULEYMAN OZERDEN
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?