Grayer v. County of St. Louis

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 3 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Tanisha Grayer, 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Tanisha Grayer, 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petition er Tanisha Grayer. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. A separate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 4/23/13. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
TANISHA GRAYER,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRIS KOSTER and
HERBERT L. BERNSEN,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13CV553 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at St. Louis City
Justice Center, has filed her petition on the grounds that (1) she was denied due
process because the State of Missouri failed to follow appropriate procedures “by not
having any endorsements on their complaint” and (2) “said witnesses did not pick
[her] out of a lin up or a photo lineup, said witnesses pointed [her] out in court at the
preliminary hearing when said prosecutor pointed at [her].” The petition will be
summarily dismissed.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the federal courts have jurisdiction over pretrial
habeas petitions. 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. Only 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” existed where double jeopardy was at issue or
where a speedy trial claim was raised. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410
U.S. 484, 488 (1973) (speedy trial); Blanck, 48 F. Supp. 2d at 860 (double jeopardy).
The grounds raised by petitioner do not constitute the “special circumstances”
required for a finding that she has exhausted her available state remedies. Petitioner’s
allegations are conclusory and do not contain any facts, which if proved, would
demonstrate that she has been deprived of the right to a speedy trial or that she has
been put in double jeopardy. Additionally, the claims raised by petitioner can be
adequately raised at trial and in subsequent state proceedings. As a result, the Court
will deny the petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED.
-2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of
appealability.
A separate Judgment shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2013.

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-