Boyd v. State of Missouri
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/14/15. (LGK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
JAMES DONTA BOYD,
STATE OF MISSOURI,
No. 4:14CV2118 JAR
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on petitioner’s petition for writ of mandamus. At the time
petitioner filed his complaint, he was a pretrial detainee. Petitioner alleges that his speedy trial
rights have been violated, and he seeks immediate release from incarceration.
Relief under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, is not available to detainees or
prisoners seeking release from confinement. The only available avenue for relief for pretrial
detainees seeking release from confinement on constitutional grounds is to file a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, the Court will liberally construe this
action as a § 2241 petition.
The Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings in the state criminal case. Petitioner
was charged in 2013 with one count of second degree domestic assault and one count of armed
criminal action. Missouri v. Boyd, No. 1322-CR03260-01 (City of St. Louis) (accessed on
Missouri’s Case.net on January 13, 2015, https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do).
When petitioner filed this action, the case had been pending for approximately seventeen
months. On January 5, 2015, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion to dismiss for violation of
his right to a speedy trial. The case went to trial on January 6, 2015, and a jury found petitioner
guilty on January 7, 2015. Id.
Pretrial detainees seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must exhaust available state
remedies, except in cases where “special circumstances” exist. See Davis v. Muellar, 643 F.2d
521, 525 (1981). Now that petitioner has been convicted by a jury, he can present his speedy
trial claim to the state appellate court on direct appeal. Special circumstances do not exist in this
case that would warrant excusing the exhaustion requirement. As a result, the Court will dismiss
this action without further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4 (requiring dismissal of
habeas petitions where it is apparent from the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find it debatable
whether the petition should be dismissed for lack of exhaustion. Thus, the Court will not issue a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis [ECF No. 2] is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is DENIED, and this action is
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Dated this 14th day of January, 2015.
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to § 2241 petitions. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule
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?