Jones v. Coates
OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s petitions for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice. [ECF Nos. 1, 3, and 4]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioners motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot because petitioner paid the five dollar filing fee. [ECF No. 5]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. 5 Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 11/20/17. (CLA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ADRIAN M. JONES,
No. 2:17CV69 HEA
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner=s applications for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner filed this action on October 10, 2017, while he was a pretrial detainee at
Marion County Jail.
See State of Missouri v. Adrian M. Jones, Case No. 17MR-CR00051-01
(Marion County). Petitioner alleges he has been kidnapped and seized against his will.
states, “There is no injured party so I demand this charge to be dismissed and I demand for the
off set of the charge for the boxes to be removed and the plane [sic] to be level.
soul and I reserve all of my rights without prejudice.”
I am a living
In an amended petition, petitioner states
he wants the Court to “RELEASE MY BEING expressed as Adrian M Jones but being
construed as the property ADRIAN M JONES the proper syntax are invalid in every document.
I have been kidnapped and forced. Release me AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.”
The Court notes that review of Missouri Case.Net shows that petitioner was arrested on
October 6, 2017 for the Class E Felony of Domestic Assault in the Third Degree.
Missouri v. Adrian M. Jones, Case No. 17MR-CR00051-01 (Marion County).
See State of
On October 13,
2017, he was served another warrant while in Marion County Jail for Assault in the Fourth
Degree and Resisting/Interfering with Arrest for a Felony.
Jones, Case No. 17MN-CR00221 (Monroe County).
See State of Missouri v. Adrian M.
On November 2, 2017, petitioner
withdrew his plea of not guilty and entered a plea of guilty to the domestic assault charges.
The Marion County Court granted defendant a suspended execution of sentence and placed him
on probation with the Missouri State Office of Probation and Parole for five years.
posted bond in his Monroe County case, and a preliminary hearing is set for November 14,
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the federal courts have jurisdiction over pretrial habeas
Neville v. Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1979).
“Despite the existence of
jurisdiction, however, federal courts are reluctant to grant pre-trial habeas relief.” Id.
when “special circumstances” exist will a federal court find that a pretrial detainee has
exhausted state remedies.
Id. “In most cases courts will not consider claims that can be
raised at trial and in subsequent state proceeding.”
Blanck v. Waukesha County, 48 F. Supp. 2d
859, 860 (D. Wis. 1999).
Courts have found that “special circumstances” exist where double jeopardy is at issue or
where a speedy trial claim is raised. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 488
(1973) (speedy trial); Blanck, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 860 (double jeopardy).
not raise a speedy trial or double jeopardy claim.
Here, petitioner does
The grounds raised by petitioner do not
appear to constitute the “special circumstances” required for a finding that he has exhausted his
available state remedies.1
Petitioner has failed to include enough facts to allow the Court to
In the absence of special circumstances, a state prisoner must exhaust currently
available and adequate state remedies before invoking federal habeas corpus jurisdiction.
evaluate his conclusory allegations, and most importantly, the claims raised by petitioner could
be adequately raised with his appointed counsel in his state proceedings. As a result, the Court
will deny and dismiss the petitions, without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner=s petitions for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 are DENIED and DISMISSED without prejudice.
[ECF Nos. 1,
3, and 4]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis is DENIED as moot because petitioner paid the five dollar filing fee. [ECF No. 5]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 20th day of November, 2017
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Braden, 410 U.S. at 484. Missouri law provides at least three distinct avenues for a pre-trial
detainee to challenge unconstitutional conduct: filing a declaratory action, filing a state petition
for habeas corpus, or filing a petition for writ of mandamus. See Wayne v. Missouri Bd. of
Prob. and Parole, 83 F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1996). Petitioner did not fully exhaust his
state remedies before bringing this action.
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?