Dekruyff v. Clay County Sheriff's Department

Filing 10

ORDER: ORDERED that: (1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; and (2) this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed on April 9, 2012 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Thoennes, Cindy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
RICHARD GARY DEKRUYFF,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Petitioner,
vs.
BOB BOYDSTON, et al.,

Case No. 11-1252-CV-W-FJG-P

Respondents.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, a pretrial detainee currently confined at the Clay County Detention Center in
Liberty, Missouri, has filed pro se a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Petitioner challenges his continuing confinement on a charge of trafficking in drugs in the second
degree pending against him in the Circuit Court of Clay County, Missouri, State v. Richard G.
Dekruyff, Jr., Case No. 09CY-CR04071. Petitioner raises three grounds for relief in which he
contends that Clay County, Missouri, is denying him the right to a speedy trial, that his “writ of habeas
corpus was denied for reason’s unknown,” and that his counsel’s representation on the pending charge
has been ineffective. Doc. No. 1, pp. 4-6.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2009, a grand jury indictment was issued for plaintiff by the Clay County
Circuit Court. Doc. No. 6, p. 1. The Missouri Case.Net electronic docket sheet shows that, on May
2, 2011, petitioner filed a Motion for Disposition of Detainer in accordance with the Uniform
Mandatory Disposition of Detainers Law codified at Mo. Rev. Stat. § 217.450-217.485 (2004) while
in a separate detention facility. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum subsequently was ordered,
and petitioner was arraigned by the Clay County Circuit Court on May 16, 2011. Doc. No. 6, p. 1;

Doc. No. 8, p. 1. According to the docket sheet, on June 16, 2011, petitioner was re-arraigned and,
at petitioner’s request, no trial date was set. Respondent points out, and the docket sheet supports, that
the Clay County Circuit Court has set several trial dates that have been continued at petitioner’s
request and that the state never has requested a continuance of a trial date in petitioner’s case. Doc.
No. 6, pp. 1-2. Petitioner denies that he has requested a continuance and alleges that the state has
requested a continuance “at all subsequent hearings.” Doc. No. 8, p. 1.
On September 14, 2011, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss for failure to try him within 180
days of disposition, and the state circuit court twice denied him relief. Doc. No. 6, p. 2; Doc. No. 8,
pp. 1-2. On November 14, 2011, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal in the Missouri Court of Appeals,
Western District, and on January 4, 2012, petitioner’s Notice of Appeal was dismissed because
petitioner failed to appeal an order that was either final or without further remedy under Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 547.070. Doc. No. 6, p. 2; Doc. No. 8, p. 2. The most recent entry on the docket sheet on March
22, 2012, shows that petitioner’s case was continued for good cause shown by petitioner and that a
hearing is scheduled for April 15, 2012.
DISCUSSION
Respondents argue that this petition ought to be denied, because petitioner has failed to exhaust
available state remedies. Doc. No. 6, pp. 2-3. Respondents contend that petitioner must present his
claims to the state courts “in a vehicle that works to fairly present the claim.” Doc. No. 6, p. 2.
Respondents state that if petitioner files a petition seeking state habeas corpus review of the denial of
his motion to dismiss and is denied, he must refile the petition with a state appellate court to seek
appellate review. Doc. No. 6, p. 3. Furthermore, respondents argue that petitioner’s claims are not
cognizable in federal habeas. Id. In response, petitioner argues that the denial of his motion to dismiss
for failure to prosecute within 180 days was a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial

2

and that his arrest and detention violate his protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
under the Missouri and United States Constitutions. Doc. No. 8, p. 3.
Federal courts have consistently recognized that the principles of comity and federalism require
state pre-trial detainees to present their constitutional claims in the state courts before seeking federal
habeas corpus relief. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S.
956 (1987); Politano v. Miller, 2008 WL 906300, *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2008). “Congress and the
federal judiciary have consistently recognized that federal courts should permit state courts to try state
cases, and that where constitutional issues arise, state court judges are fully competent to handle them
subject to Supreme Court review.” Bonner v. Circuit Court of City of St. Louis, Missouri, 526 F.2d
1331, 1336 (8th Cir. 1975), cert denied, 424 U.S. 946 (1976) (citations omitted). Thus, federal courts
should abstain from the exercise of pretrial habeas corpus jurisdiction if the issues raised by petitioner
“may be resolved either by a trial on the merits in state court or by other state procedures available to
the petitioner.” Dickerson, 816 F. 2d at 225. Therefore, “federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent
‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge
prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). Federal habeas corpus should not be used as a “pre-trial motion forum for
state prisoners.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 493.
Petitioner’s grounds in this federal petition must be presented to the state trial court and/or state
appellate courts as part of his state criminal proceedings and must then be raised again to the state postconviction and appellate courts if he is convicted. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 520 (1982). Unlike
Braden, petitioner has not made repeated demands for trial to the state court. Braden, 410 U.S. at 48990. Instead, the Missouri Case.Net electronic docket sheet shows that petitioner has made multiple
requests for the court not to set a trial date, with the most recent request for continuance having

3

occurred on March 22, 2012.1 As a result, petitioner’s allegations do not constitute “special
circumstances” permitting pretrial habeas corpus consideration of his claims because they do not
demonstrate that petitioner has been deprived of his constitutional rights. Id. at 490. Because
consideration of petitioner’s pretrial claims are not justified under either the exhaustion doctrine or the
abstention doctrine, the Court will dismiss this petition.
Petitioner also must present all of his post-trial grounds for relief to the state court in order to
exhaust all available state court remedies before his claims can be considered in a federal habeas
proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) and (c).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
(1) the petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; and
(2) this case is dismissed without prejudice.

/s/ Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
FERNANDO J. GAITAN, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kansas City, Missouri,
Dated: April 9, 2012 .

1

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 545.780 states that if defendant files a request for a speedy trial, “then
the court shall set the case for trial as soon as reasonably possible thereafter.” Although plaintiff
has moved to dismiss the case for failure to prosecute within 180 days, he does not allege that he
has filed a request for a speedy trial.
4