JOHNSTON v. ARTIS
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 11/19/2013. (dmr)(n.m.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HIRAM R. JOHNSTON, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
LAWRENCE ARTIS, Warden,
Respondent.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-6947(NLH)
OPINION
APPEARANCES:
Hiram R. Johnston, Jr.
Burlington County Detention Center
P.O. Box 6000
54 Grant Street
Mount Holly, NJ 08060
Petitioner pro se
HILLMAN, District Judge
Petitioner Hiram R. Johnston, Jr., a pre-trial detainee
confined at the Burlington County Detention Center in Mount
Holly, New Jersey, has filed 1 a Petition for a writ of habeas
1
The Petition is dated September 7, 2012, and was received
in the Clerk’s Office on September 19, 2012. It was not
docketed until November 15, 2013. To the extent there is any
confusion as to the date the Petition was filed, this Court
deems the Petition filed as of September 7, 2012, pursuant to
the federal “mailbox rule.” See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266
(1988) and Burns v. Morton, 1334 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 1998). See
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2
The sole respondent is
Warden Lawrence Artis.
Because it appears from a review of the Petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Petition will be
dismissed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
I.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner asserts that on November 16, 2010, he was
indicted by a New Jersey grand jury on the charge of Terroristic
Threats, in violation of N.J.S.A. § 2C:12-3b.
Thereafter, while
the New Jersey charges were pending, he was removed to the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to face parole revocation charges.
Apparently as a result of a parole revocation in Pennsylvania,
he was confined at the State Correctional Institution at
Frackville, Pennsylvania.
On May 4, 2012, while confined in
Pennsylvania, Petitioner made a formal request under the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act for final disposition of
also Woodson v. Payton, 503 F.App’x 110, 112 n.3 (3d Cir. 2012)
(citing both Houston and Burns).
2
Section 2241 provides in relevant part:
(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the
Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district
courts and any circuit judge within their respective
jurisdictions.
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a
prisoner unless-- ... (3) He is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States ... .
2
the untried New Jersey charges.
In response to the request,
Petitioner was transported to the Burlington County Detention
Center to await trial.
Petitioner contends that he was
transported without any of his legal papers, apparently
including papers related to his attempts to have the New Jersey
charges dismissed.
Petitioner further asserts that the
Burlington County Detention Center has no “legal access
program.” 3
Petitioner states that on September 5, 2012, two days
before he mailed this Petition, he filed in his pending New
Jersey criminal matter a “Motion for Legal Access.”
Petitioner asks this Court to dismiss all pending New
Jersey charges against him and to return him to the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, where he contends he is to be promptly released
on parole.
II.
STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL
United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in
relevant part as follows:
A court, justice or judge entertaining an application
for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the
writ or issue an order directing the respondent to
show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless
it appears from the application that the applicant or
person detained is not entitled thereto.
3
Petitioner does not state whether he is represented by counsel
with respect to the untried New Jersey charges.
3
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than
more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Estelle v. Gamble,
429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972).
See also Higgs v. Attorney General of the U.S., 655
F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011) (“The obligation to liberally
construe a pro se litigant’s pleadings is well-established.”
(citing Estelle and Haines)).
A pro se habeas petition and any
supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a
measure of tolerance.
See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d
Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d
Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d
Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
Nevertheless, a
federal district court can dismiss a habeas corpus petition if
it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief.
See Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314,
320 (1996); Denny v. Schultz, 708 F.3d 140, 148 n.3 (3d Cir.
2013).
See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.
III.
ANALYSIS
Addressing the question whether a federal court should ever
grant a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner, the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held:
(1) federal courts have “pre-trial” habeas corpus
jurisdiction;
4
(2) that jurisdiction without exhaustion should not
be exercised at the pre-trial stage unless
extraordinary circumstances are present ... ;
(3) where there are no extraordinary circumstances
and where petitioner seeks to litigate the merits of a
constitutional defense to a state criminal charge, the
district court should exercise its “pre-trial” habeas
jurisdiction only if petitioner makes a special
showing of the need for such adjudication and has
exhausted state remedies.
Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 443 (3d Cir. 1975) (citations
omitted), followed in Duran v. Thomas, 393 F.App’x 3 (3d Cir.
2010).
In general, exhaustion is required of a state pre-trial
detainee seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus.
In the
absence of exhaustion, this Court should exercise pre-trial
habeas jurisdiction only if “extraordinary circumstances are
present.”
See Duran, 393 F.App’x 3 at *4-*5.
Petitioner filed this Petition only two days after
submitting with the state trial court a motion for access to
legal materials.
Certainly, his claim of lack of access to
legal materials has not been exhausted.
He has not alleged any
extraordinary circumstances that would justify this Court’s
exercise of jurisdiction at this time.
Accordingly, there is no
basis for this Court to intervene in this pending state criminal
proceeding.
Cf. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (holding
that a federal court must abstain from addressing requests for
injunctive relief against state criminal proceedings so long as
5
the constitutional issues involved may be addressed adequately
in the course of the state proceedings); Evans v. Court of
Common Pleas, Delaware Co., Pennsylvania, 959 F.2d 1227 (3d Cir.
1992), cert. dismissed, 506 U.S. 1089 (1993) (relying upon both
Moore and Younger to affirm denial of habeas relief to state
prisoner awaiting retrial following reversal of conviction for
evidentiary errors); Bey v. Cohen, Civil No. 13-1301, 2013 WL
948613 (D.N.J. Mar. 11, 2013) (relying upon both Moore and
Younger to deny habeas relief to state pre-trial detainee).
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be
dismissed without prejudice.
An appropriate order follows.
At Camden, New Jersey
Dated:
s/ Noel L. Hillman
Noel L. Hillman
United States District Judge
November 19, 2013
6
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?