Badger v. Amite County Circuit Court

Filing 23

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's Report and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 19 is ADOPTED in its entirety as the findings and conclusions o f this Court; FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court treats the Petitioner's "Motion to Amend Traverse Reply or Alternatively to Reply to Respondent's... New Submissions" 11 as an additional Response to the Motion to Dismiss, a nd not as a Motion per se, it is DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion to Stay All State Court Proceedings 16 is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 5 is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice. A Final Judgment shall be entered this date in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the Petitioner's Petition without prejudice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 8/21/2017 (ND)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
WESTERN DIVISION
CRAYTONIA LATROY BADGER

PETITIONER

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:16-cv-102(DCB)(MTP)

AMITE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

RESPONDENT

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This cause is before the Court on the Respondent’s Motion to
Dismiss [docket entry 5] based on the Petitioner’s failure to
exhaust state court remedies, and on the Petitioner’s Response
[docket entry 9] to the Motion to Dismiss.

In addition, the

Petitioner filed a Motion [docket entry 11] to Amend Traverse Reply
or Alternatively to Reply to Respondent’s ... New Submissions,”
which the Court construes as an additional Response to the Motion
to Dismiss.

Also before the Court is the Petitioner’s Motion to

Stay All State Court Proceedings [docket entry 16].
On July 24, 2017, Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker filed his
Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) [docket entry 19]. On August 10,
2017, the Petitioner filed his Objections to the R&R [docket entry
21], and on August 17, 2017, the Respondent filed a Response to the
Petitioner’s

Objections

[docket

entry

22].

Having

carefully

considered the record and the applicable law, the Court finds that
the R&R should be adopted by this Court and that the Respondent’s
Motion to Dismiss should be granted.
The Petitioner, Craytonia Badger (“Badger”), proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 on October 27, 2016.
Until recently, Badger was incarcerated in Arkansas.1
of Address [docket entry 8].
Mississippi.

Id.

See Change

He was just recently extradited to

In his Petition, Badger seeks to enforce his

speedy trial right in certain criminal matters pending in the
Circuit Court of Amite County, Mississippi.2

He further claims

that he was falsely arrested because of a defective warrant, argues
that his appointed counsel is incompetent, and desires to proceed
pro se in his state court matters.3

He contends that he filed

motions in the circuit court on these issues, but that the circuit

1

When the petition was initially filed the petitioner was
incarcerated in Tennessee.
2

The filings indicate that the case numbers of the criminal
matters Petitioner refers to are 15-KR-016 and 15-KR-023B. See
Petition [1] at p.2; [10-1].
3

Specifically, the Petitioner raised the following grounds and
request for relief, quoted verbatim:
Ground One: Denial of defendant sixth amendment right
to a speedy and public trial.
Ground Two: Violation of petitioner right to due
process of law and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Ground Three: Violation of defendant sixth amendment
right competent counsel or counsel of choice.
Request for Relief: (1) That this court orders the
circuit court to commence trial in this matter within 30
days of the court ruling or dismiss charges. (2) That the
circle court commence an arrangement within 30 days in
docket 2015-023B. (3) That the circuit respect defendant
right to represent himself under the sixth amendment.
See Petition [1].

2

court would not rule on the motions as the matter was stayed.
Badger requests an order from this Court directing the State to
bring one of his Amite County criminal matters to trial and
commence an arraignment in his other criminal matter or, in the
alternative, requests that this Court dismiss the state charges.
[docket entry 1] p.8.
In the Motion to Dismiss [docket entry 5], the Respondent
contends that the instant petition should be dismissed because the
Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies.
the

Respondent’s

Motion

to

Dismiss

was

filed,

one

After
of

the

Petitioner’s criminal matters was set for trial in Amite County,
and motions pertaining to the issues presented in the instant
petition were presented to court.

See [docket entry 14] and

Exhibits thereto.
The Petitioner, as a pre-trial detainee, seeks to enforce
Mississippi’s obligation to promptly bring him to trial under the
Sixth Amendment.

His petition is properly brought under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, “which applies to persons in custody regardless of whether
final judgment has been rendered and regardless of the present
status of the case pending against him.”

Dickerson v. State of

La., 816 F.2d 220, 224, 226 (5th Cir. 1987); see also Brown v.
Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976). The Petitioner meets
the “in custody” requirement of Section 2241 even though he was in
the Arkansas prison system.

See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225; see

3

also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484,
489 n.4 (1973)(“Since the Alabama warden acts here as the agent of
the Commonwealth of Kentucky in holding the petitioner pursuant to
the Kentucky detainer, we have no difficulty concluding that
petitioner

is

2241(c)(3).”)4

'in

custody'

for

purposes

of

28

U.S.C.

§

However, “federal 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.”

Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.

A

petitioner is not permitted to derail “a pending state proceeding
by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in
federal court.”

Id. at 493.

“[P]re-trial habeas relief is generally not available to
consider a petitioner's claim that a state is barred from trying
him because it has violated his sixth amendment right to a speedy
trial.”

Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 226.

However, requesting an order

granting a petitioner a prompt trial is a proper request for pretrial habeas relief.

“Under Braden this request may be considered

by pre-trial habeas provided that the state courts have had an
opportunity to rule on the issue.”

Id. at 228.

“[T]here is a

distinction between a petitioner who seeks to ‘abort a state
proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of state judicial

4

As previously noted, until just recently Badger was
incarcerated in Arkansas.

4

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, 530 F.2d at 1283).

Id. at 226 (quoting

“This distinction apparently turns upon

the type of relief sought: an attempt to dismiss an indictment or
otherwise prevent a prosecution is of the first type, while an
attempt to force the state to go to trial is of the second.”
Brown, 530 F.2d at 1283.

“While the former objective is normally

not attainable through federal habeas corpus, the latter is ....”
Id.
Petitioner Badger seeks an order that he be brought to trial.5
However, in order to obtain habeas relief, the Petitioner is
required to exhaust his available state remedies.

Dickerson, 816

F.2d at 225 (stating that “federal courts should abstain from the
exercise of ... jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition
may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or
by other state procedures available to the petitioner”); Brown, 530
F.2d at 1283 (5th Cir. 1976).

“The exhaustion doctrine of section

2241(c)(3) was judicially crafted on federalism grounds in order to
protect the state courts' opportunity to confront and resolve
initially

any

constitutional

issues

5

arising

within

their

He also requests, alternatively, that the charges be dismissed;
however, as discussed above, that is not an available remedy to the
Petitioner in a pre-trial habeas petition. See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at
226.

5

jurisdictions as well as to limit federal interference in the state
adjudicatory process.”

Id.

“In order for a petitioner proceeding

pursuant to § 2241 to exhaust his available state remedies, he
would need to present the grounds of his federal habeas petition to
the Mississippi Supreme Court.”

Hudson v. Mississippi, 2009 WL

2487930, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 12, 2009).
An Amite County Circuit Court Order signed on September 6,
2016, indicates that Badger has filed numerous pleadings seeking a
speedy trial in his two criminal matters in Amite County, in
addition to numerous filings with the Mississippi Supreme Court.
See [docket entry 1] pp.17-18; [docket entry 5][document 5-1]. The
Amite County Circuit Court Order also outlines the sequence of
events in Badger’s criminal matters:
[D]efendant was indicted in cause number 15-KR-016 of
this court for burglary, as an habitual offender. The
indictment was filed on April 13, 2015. The defendant
was out on bond at the time of his indictment, having
previously been incarcerated at the Amite County Jail.
The defendant was arraigned on April 16, 2015, was
appointed counsel, and was allowed to remain out on the
same bond pending his trial which was set for September
16, 2015.6 The defendant failed to appear for his trial
and a bench warrant was issued by the court on September
16, 2015. Apparently, the defendant was incarcerated in
Arkansas’ correctional system by the time of his trial.
6

The Petitioner disputes this version of the facts and contends
that he “was not on bail prior to arraignment and was not allowed to
remain out on bond pending trial.” See [docket entry 11] at p.2. He
points out that Respondent’s submissions indicate that he was in the
custody of the Amite County Sheriff’s Department during this time
period, and was subsequently transported to Arkansas on May 4, 2015.
See [docket entry 10-2] at p.2. Regardless, this fact discrepancy
does not affect the exhaustion analysis.

6

The defendant was also indicted on June 30, 2015, in
cause number 15-KR-32B of this court, for possession of
a controlled substance in jail, and conspiracy to possess
a controlled substance in jail, as an habitual offender,
both allegedly committed on February 26, 2015, when he
had been in the Amite County Jail previously.
The
defendant has not been arraigned on said indictment, due
to his absence from the jurisdiction of the court.
In the Amite County Circuit Court Order of September 6, 2016,
the

court

also

found

that

because

Badger

was

outside

the

jurisdiction of the Amite County Circuit Court, and in the Arkansas
correctional system “... his numerous motions for a speedy trial
should be stayed, pending his availability to the jurisdiction of
the court.”

See Amite County Circuit Court Order of September 6,

2016, at [docket entry 1] pp.17-18; [docket entry 5][document 5-1].
After the circuit court stayed the motions for a speedy trial,
Badger

filed

a

“Writ

of

Mandamus

and

an

Application

for

an

Interculpatory [sic] Appeal” in the Mississippi Supreme Court. See
[docket entry 1] at p.20; [docket entry 10-1].

The Mississippi

Supreme Court issued an order directing the circuit court judge and
the 6th Circuit District Attorney's Office to specifically address
how this stay complies with Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 383
(1969), which states that “[u]pon the petitioner's demand, [a
state] ha[s] a constitutional duty to make a diligent, good-faith
effort to bring him before the

7

...

court

for

trial.”7

The

See Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss [docket entry 5] Exhibit A
(Document 5-1 at p.1).

7

responses indicated that the Petitioner could have proceeded to
trial in Mississippi, but instead requested and voluntarily agreed
to go to Arkansas so that he could face criminal charges there,
with the understanding that he would return to Mississippi upon
resolution of the Arkansas charges.8

On December 6, 2016, the

Mississippi Supreme Court denied the “Writ of Mandamus and the
Application for an Interculpatory [sic] Appeal,” and the stay
remained in place. Badger then filed a “Motion for Reconsideration
of Mandamus and Interculpatory [sic] Appeal,” which the Mississippi
Supreme Court denied on March 1, 2017.

See [docket entry 10-3].9

The Petitioner’s motions pertaining to a request for a speedy
trial remained stayed in the Amite County Circuit Court pending his
availability in that jurisdiction.

The State has represented that

it intended to bring the Petitioner back to Mississippi for trial
in one of his criminal matters, and that it has now done so.

One

of the Petitioner’s criminal matters has been set for trial by
court order, and the Petitioner has been brought back to Amite
County.

See Order Setting Trial at document [14-5]; and Change of

8

See [docket entry 10-2] at p.2. The Petitioner claims that the
real reason Amite County transported him to Arkansas was that he had
head trauma, and Amite County wanted Arkansas to pay for the medical
cost. Badger argues that the Respondent has failed to produce any
documentation of his request and agreement other than the waiver of
extradition to Arkansas. He claims that the Amite County Sheriff
informed him that he would be sent to Arkansas to be cared for and
would then be brought back to Mississippi. See [docket entry 11] at
p.3.
9

See also Order Denying Reconsideration, available at
https://courts.ms.gov/appellate_courts.
8

Address [docket entry 18].

Now that Badger is back within the

jurisdiction of Amite County, state remedies via motions in the
state

trial

court

are

available

to

him,

and

addressed in due course by the circuit court.
14] and Exhibits thereto.10

motions

can

be

See [docket entry

Therefore, inasmuch as the Petitioner

may now seek redress in the state trial court, Magistrate Judge
Parker recommends that the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be
granted, and that Badger’s Petition be dismissed without prejudice.
On August 10, 2017, the Petitioner filed his Objections to
Magistrate Judge Parker’s Report and Recommendation.

In his

Objections, he claims that he exhausted his state court remedies.
Further, he argues that this Court erred “by failing to issue a
stay of all state court proceedings, because the manner [...] which
the [state] court used to extradite the petitioner from Arkansas to
Mississippi was illegal and violated the Extradition Clause.”
[docket entry 21] p.2.

10

It further appears the State is providing the Petitioner with
the relief sought in his Petition. See Order Setting Trial [document
14-5]. The State represents that Debra W. Blackwell, Assistant
District Attorney for the Sixth Circuit Court District, has indicated
she will request that the circuit court arraign Petitioner on his
other charges as well. See [docket entry 14] at p.3. This action in
conjunction with the pending trial would appear to moot the instant
petition. Upon learning that the State planned to bring him back to
Mississippi for trial, Badger filed a Motion to Stay All State Court
Proceedings, asking this Court to stay his trial. See Motion [docket
entry 16]. This is the opposite of what Badger requests in his
petition – a speedy trial. Regardless, as there are motions pending
in the trial court on issues contained in the instant petition, and
the Petitioner has been returned to Mississippi, where his motions can
be addressed, Magistrate Judge Parker recommends that the petition be
dismissed without prejudice.

9

As previously discussed, federal courts should abstain from
the exercise of jurisdiction if the issues raised in the Petition
can be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or
by other procedures available to the Petitioner.

The exhaustion

doctrine was designed “on federalism grounds in order to protect
the state courts’ opportunity to confront and resolve initially any
constitutional issues arising within their jurisdiction as well as
to limit federal interference in the state adjudicatory process.”
Brown, 530 F.2d at 1283.
In order for Badger to exhaust his available state remedies,
he would need to present the grounds of his federal habeas petition
to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Hudson, 2009 WL 2487930, at *1.

Badger was indicted in April of 2015, and was out on bond at the
time, having previously been incarcerated in the Amite County Jail.
He was arraigned on April 16, 2015, was appointed counsel, and was
allowed to remain out on his existing bond pending his trial date
of September 16, 2015.

However, as the Amite County Circuit Court

found, Badger failed to appear for his trial because he was
incarcerated in the Arkansas correctional system.
Badger was indicted again in Amite County on June 30, 2015, on
other charges, but was not arraigned because he was outside the
jurisdiction of the Amite County Circuit Court.

Badger could have

proceeded to trial in Mississippi, but instead chose to go to
Arkansas to face his criminal charges there, with the understanding

10

that he would return to Mississippi upon resolution of the Arkansas
charges. The Amite County charges remained stayed pending Badger’s
return to Mississippi.

He has now returned to Mississippi.

At the time Magistrate Judge Parker’s R&R was entered, the
Petitioner was awaiting trial in Amite County, and all state
remedies were available to him in the Amite County Circuit Court.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Objections
filed on August 17, 2017 [docket entry 22] indicates that Badger’s
trial in the state court has concluded.

Badger was convicted of

burglary of a storehouse in Amite County Circuit Court (Cause no.
15-KR-016).

By

Order

dated

July

26,

2017,

the

trial

court

sentenced Badger as an habitual offender to serve a term of seven
(7)

years

in

Corrections.

the

custody

of

the

Mississippi

Department

of

See Order Upon Jury Verdict of Guilty - Habitual

Offender [document 22-1].
On the state’s motion, the Circuit Court entered an Order of
Nolle Prosequi as to Badger’s remaining charges of possession of a
controlled substance in jail and conspiracy to possess a controlled
substance in jail in Amite County Circuit Court (Cause no. 15-KR0032).

See Order of Nolle Prosequi [document 22-2].

Therefore,

the relief sought by Badger in the instant Petition (i.e. an order
from this Court directing the State to bring his burglary charge to
trial

and

commence

arraignment

on

the

drug

charges

or,

alternatively, to dismiss his state charges) is no longer an

11

available remedy in light of these recent proceedings in the Amite
County Circuit Court.

Thus, as Magistrate Judge Parker predicted,

Badger’s Petition has been rendered moot.

See footnote 10, supra,

noting that Magistrate Judge Parker recommends dismissal of the
Petition without prejudice.
The relief sought by Badger in his Petition (an order from
this Court directing the State to bring his burglary charge to
trial

and

commence

arraignment

of

the

drug

charges

or,

alternatively, to dismiss his state charges (see [docket entry 1]
p.8)),

is

no

longer

an

available

remedy,

given

the

recent

proceedings in the Amite County Circuit Court. Badger is no longer
a pre-trial detainee, and his Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 shall be dismissed without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker’s
Report and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 [docket entry 19] is
ADOPTED in its entirety as the findings and conclusions of this
Court;
FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court treats the Petitioner’s
“Motion to Amend Traverse Reply or Alternatively to Reply to
Respondent’s

...

New

Submissions”

[docket

entry

11]

as

an

additional Response to the Motion to Dismiss, and not as a Motion
per se, it is DENIED AS MOOT;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion to Stay All State
12

Court Proceedings [docket entry 16] is DENIED;
FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Respondent’s

Motion

to

Dismiss

[docket entry 5] is GRANTED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of
Habeas

Corpus

Under

28

U.S.C.

§

2241

is

dismissed

without

prejudice.
A Final Judgment shall be entered this date in accordance with
Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the
Petitioner’s Petition without prejudice.
SO ORDERED, this the 21st day of August, 2017.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13