Graham v. Sollie et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation 10 of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is adopted as the opinion of the Court. Defendant's motion to dismiss 7 is granted; the Petition 1 is dismissed. Signed by Chief District Judge Daniel P. Jordan, III on 11/18/2021 (VM)
Case 3:21-cv-00379-DPJ-FKB Document 14 Filed 11/18/21 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SHALAN MONTREZE GRAHAM
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:21-CV-379-DPJ-FKB
This action for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is before the Court on the Report
and Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball. Petitioner Shalan
Montreze Graham is a pretrial detainee being held in the Lauderdale County Detention Center on
charges of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and two counts of felon in possession of a firearm.
He asks the Court to dismiss the charges against him and release him. R&R  at 1. He also
challenges the length of his confinement and contends he is innocent. Id. at 2.
Judge Ball, after considering Respondent Billy Sollie’s motion to dismiss, concluded that
Graham’s request for dismissal of the state charges and release fails to state a claim under
§ 2241. Id. (citing Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976)); see id. (noting that
state-court detainee may raise speedy-trial claim but that Graham made “no request to enforce
his right to a speedy trial”). Judge Ball further found that, to the extent Graham is seeking to
force the state to indict him and bring him to trial, “it does not appear that he has exhausted his
state court remedies.” Id.
Graham filed an Objection ; Sollie responded ; and Graham filed a reply .
In his filings, Graham admits that he has now been indicted. On October 6, 2021, two separate
indictments were filed against Graham; he was arraigned on October 15, 2021; and he is set for
trial on the charges on February 8, 2022.
Case 3:21-cv-00379-DPJ-FKB Document 14 Filed 11/18/21 Page 2 of 2
Despite Judge Ball’s explanation that dismissal of state charges is not an available
remedy, Graham continues to contest the merits of the indictments, asks for dismissal of the
charges, and maintains his innocence. See R&R  at 2; Obj.  at 2 (“I’m still requesting
that charges against me are dismissed.”); Reply  at 2 (“[M]y innocence should be seen and
heard.”). The Court agrees with and adopts Judge Ball’s conclusion that Graham is “not
permitted to derail ‘a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses
prematurely in federal court.’” R&R  at 2 (quoting Brown, 530 F.2d at 1283).
As for the exhaustion issue, Graham states, “I filed for speedy trial twice while I was in
Central Mississippi Correctional Facility to the Justice and Circuit Courts.” Obj.  at 2; see
also id. (“A habeas was filed on my behalf through the state May 6, 2021 and was denied by
[Circuit Court] Judge Charles Wright.”). But, as Judge Ball pointed out, there is no indication
Graham pursued this relief on appeal. R&R  at 2; see id. at 2 n.1; see also Smith v. Dretke,
422 F.3d 269, 275 (5th Cir. 2005) (“The exhaustion requirement is satisfied when the substance
of the federal habeas claim has been fairly presented to the highest state court.”). Judge Ball
properly recommended dismissal of any claim by Graham to enforce his right to a speedy trial
for failure to exhaust state remedies.
For the reasons stated, the Report and Recommendation  is adopted as the opinion of
the Court. Defendant’s motion to dismiss  is granted; the Petition  is dismissed.
A separate judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 will be
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 18th day of November, 2021.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF 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?