Naylor v. Lauderdale County Circuit Court
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 16 Report and Recommendations,. Signed by District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 4/24/17.(TLC)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JASON SHAWN NAYLOR
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16cv437-DPJ-FKB
LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, et al.
This habeas corpus petition is before the Court on the Report and Recommendations of
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball  in which he recommends an order granting
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss . Petitioner Jason Shawn Naylor filed an Objection , in
which he seeks to convert his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition to a claim for civil damages. For the
following reasons, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendations should be adopted and
that the case should not be converted.
Naylor is currently a pre-trial detainee in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. In his
Amended Petition , he challenges his detention for a charge of aggravated domestic violence
in Lauderdale County Circuit Court, Cause No. 133-15. According to Naylor, the county held
him in custody for 270 days without a trial. Am. Pet.  at 6. As relief, he seeks immediate
release. Id. at 8.
While Naylor’s petition was pending in this case, the Circuit Court of Lauderdale
County, Mississippi, entered an order of nolle prosequi, effectively dropping the aggravateddomestic-violence charge. See Order [11-1] at 1. But Naylor remains in jail on rape and murder
Recognizing that the state-court order mooted Naylor’s stated grounds for relief, Judge
Ball recommended dismissal. R&R  at 1−2. He also noted that there is no need to amend
Naylor’s petition to include the rape and murder charges because he already brought claims
related to those charges in a separate habeas petition docketed as Civil Action No. 3:16cv762HTW-LRA. Id.
Naylor takes no issue with Judge Ball’s recommendation as it relates to the claim for
habeas corpus relief. But in his objection, he essentially seeks leave to convert his petition to a
civil action for money damages. Naylor writes, “[M]y time is precious and can’t be given back
to me and my life was put on hold exactly 12 months. I am trying to seek compensation for
‘[e]motional [d]istress’ and ‘[p]ain and [s]uffering’ for cause no. 133-15.” Obj.  at 1.
Naylor’s Amended Petition was filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But there seems to be no
dispute that the petition became moot when the charges were dropped. Moreover, any habeas
rights he may have as to his continued detention on the rape and murder charges are already
before the Court in a separate case. Accordingly, the Court adopts the Report and
Recommendations as the Court’s order and dismisses the Amended Petition.
The only remaining question is whether the Court should construe Naylor’s objection as a
motion to amend and convert the petition for habeas corpus relief to a civil action for money
damages, most likely under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Under the circumstances, the Court will not. As
Respondent notes, the aggravated-domestic-violence charge was not the only basis for Naylor’s
detention. So the time he claims to have lost would have been lost anyway—at least to the
extent the detentions for the various charges overlapped. In addition, it is not clear that Naylor
would be entitled to the emotional-distress damages he seeks absent some physical injury. See
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e) (2012). Finally, were the Court to convert the case, Naylor would be
responsible for the $350 filing fee applicable to regular civil actions, rather than the $5 filing fee
for habeas petitions. Given the potential obstacles he faces, the Court is not willing to assume
Naylor would want to incur that expense. These observations are not substantive rulings on the
merits of a potential claim. There may be additional factors the Court is not aware of. If Naylor
wishes to pursue a civil action, he may file a separate case.
The Court has considered all the parties’ arguments. Those not specifically addressed do
not change the outcome. For the foregoing reasons, the Report and Recommendations  is
adopted, and the Motion to Dismiss  is granted. A separate judgment will be entered in
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 24th day of April, 2017.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?