Beezley v. Crawford

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED AND DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide petitioner with a blank Prison er Civil Rights Complaint form. If petitioner wishes to file his conditions of confinement claims against St. Charles County Detention Center he may fill out the complaint form and send it back to the Court. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue. A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order. (A blank Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form is attached herein to this order.) Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 11/6/17. (KJS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
SCOTT BEEZLEY,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
v.
LARRY CRAWFORD,
Respondent.

No. 4:17-CV-2432 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Before the Court is petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. After review of the application for writ of habeas corpus, the Court will deny
and dismiss the petition.
Background
Petitioner was arrested on the basis of three separately issued warrants out of St. Charles
County Court on August 18, 2017 by St. Charles Deputy Sheriff Rackhaus. The charges included
driving while revoked/suspended (felony), failing to comply with a court order requiring the use
of an ignition interlock device (misdemeanor), and failing to appear on a charge of no insurance
(misdemeanor). See State v. Beezley, Case Nos. 1711-CR00594, 1711-CR00593 and 1711CR0001098 (St. Charles County Circuit Court).
Petitioner was arraigned on the two misdemeanor charges on August 21, 2017 and bond
was set at $650.00 in cash. Petitioner was arraigned on the felony charge, in Case No. 1711CR0001098 on that same date and his bond was set at $10,000, whereupon 10% was allowed,
cash only. Petitioner was incarcerated at that time in St. Charles County Department of
Corrections.

Petitioner was released from custody on his own recognizance in all three cases on or
about September 29, 2017. However, petitioner has failed to update the Court’s docket has to his
address. Moreover, the Court notes that according to Missouri.Case.Net, petitioner has failed to
appear in all three cases at his last court date. Accordingly, he currently has a warrant out for his
arrest due to his failure to appear. See State v. Beezley, Case Nos. 1711-CR00594, 1711CR00593 and 1711-CR0001098 (St. Charles County Circuit Court).
Petitioner filed the instant action on September 14, 2017, asserting that he had been held
for thirty-four (34) days at the time he filed his petition, which he believes is an overly long time
in the St. Charles County Detention Center for what he calls “traffic tickets.”
Petitioner also asserts that he believes the bond levels to be overly high, and he asserts
that the Court and the Detention Center appear to make money from inmates remaining
incarcerated as a result of high bond amounts.
Petitioner also makes several conditions of confinement claims against the Detention
Center, but he has not indicated that he is bringing a civil lawsuit against any individuals at the
Detention Center for alleged violations of his civil rights as a result of their purported unlawful
actions against him during his incarceration there.
The Court has reviewed petitioner’s criminal case docket on Missouri.Case.Net and
reiterates that petitioner is not incarcerated at the present time. See Missouri v. Cravins, No.
1722-CR1415-01 (City of St. Louis).
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 pretrial habeas relief.” Id. Only when
2

“special circumstances” exist will a federal court find that a pretrial detainee has exhausted state
remedies. Id. AIn 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). However, a
petition must contain enough facts to state a claim as a matter of law and must not be merely
conclusory. Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th Cir. 1995).
The grounds raised by petitioner do not constitute the “special circumstances” required
for a finding that he has exhausted his available state remedies.1
Additionally, as noted above, petitioner is not incarcerated at the present time. Thus,
although he complains about excessive bond in his petition, Missouri.Case.Net shows that in his
felony action after a little more than thirty-nine (39) days of incarceration, petitioner’s bond went
from $10,000, with a 10% cash bond required, to being released on his own recognizance. The
Court cannot state that such a quick reduction in bond, given petitioner’s history of failing to
appear, was excessive.

1

In the absence of special circumstances, a state prisoner must exhaust currently available and
adequate state remedies before invoking federal habeas corpus jurisdiction. Braden, 410 U.S. at
484. Missouri law provides at least three distinct avenues for a pretrial detainee to challenge
unconstitutional conduct: filing a declaratory action, filing a state petition for habeas corpus, or
filing a state petition for writ of mandamus. See Wayne v. Missouri Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 83
F.3d 994, 996-97 (8th Cir. 1996). Petitioner has not alleged, nor has the Court found, that
petitioner exhausted his state remedies prior to bringing this action.
3

Although petitioner states in his application for writ issues relating to conditions of
confinement in St. Charles County Detention Center2, these issues are not matters cognizable in a
§ 2241 petition. Having found petitioner’s claims lacking, the Court will deny and dismiss the
petition at this time, without prejudice.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide petitioner with a blank
Prisoner Civil Rights Complaint form. If petitioner wishes to file his conditions of confinement
claims against St. Charles County Detention Center he may fill out the complaint form and send
it back to the Court.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue.
A separate Order of Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Dated this 6th day of November, 2017.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Petitioner, for example, complains about the lack of recreation time at the Detention Center, the
bugs at the Jail, the poor meal plan, the mold on the walls, poor ventilation and medical issues of
other inmates. Petitioner has not, however, indicated how these issues allegedly infringed upon
his constitutional rights or named a defendant who purportedly acted in an unlawful manner
towards petitioner. Jails are not legally suable entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Ketchum v.
City of West Mempis, Ark., 974 F.2d 81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992). And although these types of claims
are not cognizable in a habeas corpus petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner
may wish to pursue his claims in a separately filed lawsuit brought pursuant to § 1983.
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
DIVISION

(Enter above the full name of the
Plaintiff in this action. Include prison
registration number.)
v.

(Enter above the full name of ALL Defendant(s) in this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a)
requires that the caption of the complaint
include the names of all the parties. Merely
listing one party and "et al." is insufficient.
Please attach additional sheets if necessary.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.
(To be assigned by Clerk)

In what capacity are you suing the
defendants?
G
G
G

Official
Individual
Both

PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983
I.

PLACE OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT:

II.

PREVIOUS CIVIL ACTIONS:
A.

Have you brought any other civil actions in state or federal court dealing with the
same facts involved in this action or otherwise relating to your confinement?
YES

[ ]

NO

[ ]

B.

If your answer to “A” is YES, describe the action(s) in the space below. If there is
more than one action, you must describe the additional action(s) on a separate piece
of paper, using the same format as below.
1.

Parties to previous civil action:
Plaintiff:

Defendant(s):

2.
3.

Docket or case number:

4.

Name of Judge:

5.

Basic claim made:

6.

III.

Court where filed:

Present disposition (Is the case still pending? Is it closed? If closed, was it
appealed?):

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES:
A.

Is there a prisoner grievance procedure at the institution in which you are
incarcerated?
YES

B.

[ ]

NO

[ ]

Have you presented this grievance system the facts which are at issue in this
complaint?
YES

[ ]

NO

-2-

[ ]

C.

D.

IV.

If your answer to “B” is YES, what steps did you take:

If your answer to “B” is NO, explain why you have not used the grievance system:

PARTIES TO THIS ACTION:
A.

Plaintiff
1.
2.

Plaintiff’s address:

3.

B.

Name of Plaintiff:

Registration number:

Defendant(s)
1.

Name of Defendant:

2.

Defendant’s address:

3.

Defendant’s employer and job title:

4.

Additional Defendant(s) and address(es):

-3-

V.

COUNSEL
A.

Do you have an attorney to represent you in this action?
YES

B.

[ ]

NO

[ ]

If your answer to “A” is NO, have you made an effort to contact an attorney to
represent you in this matter?
YES

[ ]

NO

[ ]

C.

If your answer to “B” is YES, state the name(s) and address(es) of the attorneys you
contacted and the results of those efforts:

D.

If your answer to “B” is NO, explain why you have not made such efforts:

E.

Have you previously been represented by counsel in a civil action in this Court?
YES

F.

[ ]

NO

[ ]

If your answer to “E” is YES, state the attorney’s name and address:

-4-

VI.

Statement of claim (State as briefly as possible the facts of your case. Describe how each
defendant is involved. You must state exactly what each defendant personally did, or failed
to do, which resulted in harm to you. Include also the names of other persons involved,
dates, and places. Be as specific as possible. State your claims in numbered paragraphs. You
may use additional paper if necessary):

-5-

VII.

RELIEF
State briefly and exactly what you want the Court to do for you. Do not make legal
arguments. (Note: If you are a state prisoner and you seek from this Court relief that affects
the length or duration of your imprisonment, your case must be filed on a § 2254 form.)

VIII.

MONEY DAMAGES:
A) Do you claim either actual or punitive monetary damages for the acts alleged in this
complaint?
YES G

NO G

B) If your answer to "A" is YES, state below the amount claimed and the reason or reasons
you believe you are entitled to recover such money damages:

IX.

Do you claim that the wrongs alleged in the complaint are continuing to occur at the present
time?
YES

[ ]

NO

Signature of attorney or pro se Plaintiff

[ ]

Date

-6-