HUERTAS v. TAYLOR et al

Filing 7

OPINION. Signed by Judge Jerome B. Simandle on 3/14/2018. (tf, n.m.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

VICTOR HUERTAS,

HONORABLE JEROME B. SIMANDLE
Petitioner,
Civil Action
No. 17-7232 (JBS)

v.
KAREN TAYLOR, et al.,

OPINION
Respondents.

APPEARANCES:
Victor Huertas, Petitioner pro se
#000470539C
Bayside State Prison
PO Box F-1
Leesburg, NJ 08327

SIMANDLE, U.S. District Judge:
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Victor Huertas filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petition, Docket
Entry 1. For the reasons expressed below, the petition is
dismissed without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On December 28, 2016, Petitioner attempted to avoid an
accident by driving on the shoulder of Route 38 in Cherry Hill,
New Jersey for a brief period of time. Petition ¶ 5. He was
subsequently pulled over by a Cherry Hill police officer. Id. ¶

7. The officer asked for Petitioner’s identification,
registration, and insurance information, which Petitioner
provided. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. Shortly thereafter, the officer asked
Petitioner to step out of his vehicle. Id. ¶ 10. The officer
claimed in a later state court proceeding that he smelled
marijuana in Petitioner’s car and he discovered Petitioner had a
criminal record. Id. The officer proceeded to search Petitioner
and the inside of the car, but did not find any contraband. Id.
¶ 11. The officer then searched the trunk and found narcotics
(heroin) and guns. Id. ¶ 12. Petitioner was arrested. No
marijuana was recovered. Id. ¶ 14.
Petitioner filed this habeas petition on September 19,
2017. The Court originally administratively terminated the
petition on September 28, 2017 as Petitioner had not paid the
filing fee or submitted a complete in forma pauperis
application. Docket Entry 2. Petitioner submitted an in forma
pauperis application, and the Court granted the application.
Docket Entries 3 & 4.
Petitioner argues his confinement is unconstitutional due
to the illegality of the search of the vehicle and seizure of
the narcotics and guns. He asserts the seized evidence is the
fruit of the poisonous tree, but a state court judge denied his
motion to suppress the evidence. He argues he should be released
from incarceration.
2

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Petitioner brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
as a pro se litigant. The Court has an obligation to liberally
construe pro se pleadings and to hold them to less stringent
standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Attorney
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended
(Sept. 19, 2011) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106
(1976)). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions
must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance.
Nevertheless, a federal district court must dismiss a habeas
corpus petition if it appears from the face of the petition that
Petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4
(made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45
(3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
ANALYSIS
District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to
issue a writ of habeas corpus before a criminal judgment is
entered against an individual in state court, see Moore v. De
Young, 515 F.2d 437, 441-42 (3d Cir. 1975), but “that
jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent in
the ordinary circumstance ‘pre-trial habeas interference by
federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal
3

processes.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010)
(quoting Moore, 515 F.3d 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.
Petitioner filed this petition before entry of a judgment;
however, on December 27, 2017 Petitioner informed the Court that
he was now incarcerated in Bayside State Prison. Notice of
Change of Address, Docket Entry 5. The Court takes judicial
notice of a public record, Petitioner’s entry on the New Jersey
Department of Correction’s Inmate Search, indicating that he was
sentenced on November 17, 2017 for an offense dated December 28,
2016. See Inmate Search, available at
https://www20.state.nj.us/DOC_Inmate/inmatefinder?i=I (last
visited Mar. 13, 2018). December 28, 2016 is the date Petitioner
states he was arrested by the Cherry Hill police. Petition ¶
4(a). It would therefore appear Petitioner has been convicted
and sentenced for the offense stemming from the allegedly
unlawful search. Petitioner would therefore need to challenge
this conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he has exhausted his
state court remedies.
Even if Petitioner were a pre-trial detainee, the Court
would still decline to exercise habeas jurisdiction because he
has not exhausted his state court remedies. “‘[T]he practice of
4

exercising [federal habeas] power before the question has been
raised or determined in the state court is one which ought not
to be encouraged.’” Moore, 515 F.2d at 442 (quoting Cook v.
Hart, 146 U.S. 183, 195 (1892)). The state courts are equally
responsible for “protecting the accused in the enjoyment of his
[federal] constitutional rights,” and “comity demands that the
state courts, under whose process he is held . . . should be
appealed to in the first instance.” Id. at 442-43 (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). As Petitioner’s claims
have not been exhausted in the state courts, the Court should
not exercise its pre-trial habeas jurisdiction unless there are
extraordinary circumstances.
Petitioner alleges violations of the Fourth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. He has not presented anything indicating
that the state courts are incapable of addressing his arguments,
stating only that the trial court denied his motion to suppress.
Petition at 5. The Court concludes there are no extraordinary
circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to
exhaustion of state court remedies. Federal habeas proceedings
should not be used as a “‘pre-trial motion forum for state
prisoners,’” or to “permit the derailment of a pending state
proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses
prematurely in federal court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973).
5

“Once he has exhausted state court remedies, the federal
courts will, of course, be open to him, if need be, to entertain
any petition for habeas corpus relief which may be presented.
These procedures amply serve to protect [Petitioner]'s
constitutional rights without pre-trial federal intervention in
the orderly functioning of state criminal processes.” Moore, 515
F.2d at 449. The petition will be dismissed without prejudice to
Petitioner’s right to bring a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
if necessary, after he has exhausted his state court remedies.1
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a petitioner may not
appeal from a final order denying relief from a “detention
complained of aris[ing] out of process issued by a State Court”
unless he has “made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)-(2). “When the
district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim,
a [certificate of appealability] should issue when . . . jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

1

The Court expresses no opinion as to whether any forthcoming
petition has otherwise met the requirements of § 2254.
6

This Court denies a certificate of appealability because
jurists of reason would not find it debatable that dismissal of
the petition is correct.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, this Court will dismiss
the petition without prejudice. No certificate of appealability
shall issue.
An accompanying Order will be entered.

March 14, 2018
Date

s/ Jerome B. Simandle
JEROME B. SIMANDLE
U.S. District Judge

7