DAVIS v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 8/25/2016. (rtm, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
David C. Davis,
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Petitioner,
v.
State of New Jersey,
Camden County Corr. Facility, 1
Respondents.
This
matter
comes
before
CIV. NO. 16-4200(RMB)
the
Court
OPINION
upon
Petitioner’s
submission of a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, and an application to proceed without prepayment of
fees (“IFP application”). (Pet., ECF No. 1; IFP App., ECF No. 11.) 2 Plaintiff is a state pretrial detainee confined in Camden
County Correctional Facility, and he challenges the basis for the
state charges against him. (Id., ¶¶1-5.) The Court has examined
1
The proper respondent in a habeas corpus proceeding under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is the petitioner’s immediate custodian; here, the
Warden of Camden County Correctional Facility. Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004).
2
The Court notes Petitioner has also filed a civil rights action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arising out of the same facts alleged here.
Davis v. Superior Court of New Jersey, et al., Civil Action No.
16-4167(RMB). Because money damages are not available as habeas
relief, the Court will address Plaintiff’s claim for damages in
his § 1983 action.
1
the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts, and concludes the petition
should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
I.
THE PETITION
Petitioner
is
confined
in
Camden
County
Correctional
Facility. (Pet., ¶2.) He has been in pre-trial detention since
September 28, 2015. (Id., ¶4.) On March 14, 2016, Petitioner wrote
a letter to Judge Delaney, the state court judge presiding over
his criminal proceedings, alerting her to the alleged violation of
his constitutional rights. (Id., ¶7.) Petitioner filed a motion
for dismissal of charges in the state court proceeding on April
25, 2016. (Id., ¶10.) He filed a motion to suppress all evidence
on May 18, 2016. (Id.) He is waiting for his court hearings. (Id.)
Petitioner alleged his Fourth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth
Amendment rights have been violated. (Id., ¶13.) He refers to the
letter that he wrote to Judge Delaney, attached to the petition,
for further explanation. (Id.) In the letter (ECF No. 1-3), he
alleged lack of probable cause for arrest, fraudulent Indictment,
and improper complaint warrant. Petitioner requested a motion for
dismissal of the Indictment; suppression of evidence; motion for
an evidentiary hearing, motion for a Wade hearing; conflict of
interest
hearing,
and
bail
reduction.
2
For
habeas
relief,
Petitioner
seeks
expungement
of
the
charges
against
him
and
monetary damages for false imprisonment. (Pet., ¶15.)
II.
DISCUSSION
Petitioner has established his financial inability to pay the
filing fee, and the Court will grant his IFP application pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Although federal courts can exercise pretrial habeas corpus jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals has held that district courts should not
exercise such jurisdiction unless extraordinary circumstances are
present. Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975)).
Jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly to prevent “̔interference
by federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal
processes.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at 445-46). “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, 515 F.2d at 443.
“[W]hen
mechanisms
a
defendant
for
constitutionality
is
challenging
of
the
awaiting
the
trial,
legality
government's
of
the
an
appropriate
arrest,
actions,
or
the
the
admissibility of evidence are pretrial motions.” See U.S. v.
Roberts, 463 F. App’x 72, 74 (3d Cir. 2012)(citing Gov't of the
3
Virgin Islands v. Bolones, 427 F.2d 1135, 1136 (3d Cir. 1970)(per
curiam)). If a habeas claim is unexhausted, a federal habeas court
will typically dismiss the claim without prejudice to allow the
petitioner to exhaust his claims in state court. See Port Auth.
Police Bene. Ass’n, Inc. v. Port Auth. of New York and New Jersey
Police Dept., 973 F.2d 169, 173 (3d Cir. 1992)(“principles of
federalism and comity require district courts to abstain from
enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
circumstances”)(citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)).
Petitioner has not presented extraordinary circumstances to
explain why his constitutional claims regarding probable cause,
suppression of evidence or defects in the complaint warrant and
Indictment cannot be addressed by the state courts. Petitioner has
raised the issues in state court, and several motions are pending.
The exhaustion requirement in habeas cases presumes adequate state
remedies, absent a showing to the contrary. Wilson v. Secretary of
Pennsylvania Dept. of Corr., 782 F.3d 110, 118 (3d Cir. 2015). “By
requiring exhaustion, federal courts recognize that state courts,
no less than federal courts, are bound to safeguard the federal
rights of state criminal defendants.” Id. (quoting Parker v.
Kelchner, 429 F.3d 58, 61 (3d Cir. 2005)(quoting Jones v. Keane,
329 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2003)).
4
The appropriate means for a petitioner to challenge the
constitutionality of a state court conviction is through a petition
for
a
writ
of
habeas
corpus
under
28
U.S.C.
§
2254,
after
exhausting state court remedies. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 845 (1999)(“Because the exhaustion doctrine is designed to
give the state courts a full and fair opportunity to resolve
federal constitutional claims before those claims are presented to
the federal courts, we conclude that state prisoners must give the
state courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional
issues by invoking one complete round of the State's established
appellate
review
process.”) Nothing
in
this
Opinion
precludes
Petitioner from filing a petition under § 2254 at the appropriate
time.
III. CONCLUSION
In the accompanying Order filed herewith, the Court will
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated: August 25, 2016
s/RENÉE MARIE BUMB__________
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
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?