Wyatt v. Crawford

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 7) is DENIED. An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on August 3, 2017. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
HARRIS WYATT,
Petitioner,
v.
LARRY CRAWFORD,
Respondent,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:17-CV-1487 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on review of the petition of Harris Wyatt for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition is denied.
On June 16, 2017, a grand jury indicted petitioner on one count of thirddegree domestic assault. Missouri v. Wyatt, No. 1711-CR01162-01 (St. Charles
County). Petitioner is currently detained in the St. Charles County Department of
Corrections (the “Department”).
In his petition, petitioner maintains that he is being denied effective
assistance of counsel from his court-appointed attorney. He says his attorney is
conspiring with the court to keep him detained so that the Department “can receive
money for [his] stay and get the conviction that they seek.” He claims that he is
innocent.

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).
Petitioner’s claims can and should be raised at trial and any subsequent
appellate and postconviction proceedings.

As a result, there is no basis for

granting relief in this action, and the petition is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rules 1(b), 4.
Finally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that jurists of reason would find
it debatable whether he is entitled to pretrial habeas relief. Thus, the Court will not
issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (Doc. 6) is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED, and this action is DISMISSED.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for appointment of
counsel (Doc. 7) is DENIED.
An Order of Dismissal will be filed forthwith.
Dated this 3rd day of August, 2017.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3