Webster v. Koster, et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER : IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 5] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice. 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.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/29/13. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

SATERIA BOUVIA WEBSTER,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRIS KOSTER, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:13-CV-695-RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s amended application for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241[Doc. #4] and motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis [Doc. #5].

Upon consideration of petitioner’s financial

information, the Court finds that she is financially unable to pay any portion of the
filing fee, and therefore, the motion will be granted. Furthermore, having reviewed
the amended petition, the Court will dismiss this action, without prejudice.
The Amended Petition
Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at St. Louis County Justice Center, has filed her
amended petition on the grounds that (1) there are “errors in [the] State’s paperwork,
specifically the ‘Discovery Files’”; and (2) the State “failed to follow appropriate
procedure therefore depriving petitioner of her freedom.”

Discussion
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,
-2-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis [Doc. #5] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s amended petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, without prejudice.
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 29th day of May, 2013.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-