CUFF v. SCOTT et al

Filing 2

OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 6/5/2024. (sms2)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
BRIONNE CUFF,
Petitioner
v.
DIRECTOR BECKY SCOTT, et al.,
Respondents
____________________________________

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civ. No. 24-840 (RMB)
OPINION

RENÉE MARIE BUMB, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner Brionne Cuff, a pretrial detainee in the Hudson County Jail in
Kearny, New Jersey, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (Dkt. No. 1), alleging that he was falsely arrested and deprived of his
constitutional rights in his ongoing state criminal prosecution. For relief, Petitioner
seeks release from detention and/or dismissal of the indictment and investigation of
the various defendants. 1 Petitioner filed an application to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (Dkt. No. 1-1), which will be
granted.
This matter is now before the Court for screening pursuant to Rule 4 of the

District courts lack jurisdiction to initiate criminal investigations. See United States v.
Santtini, 963 F.2d 585, 595 (3d Cir. 1992) (“As a general proposition, matters of law
“enforcement” are within the power of the executive branch.”)
1

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 2 Rule 4
provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” SECT 2254 Rule 4.
I.

DISCUSSION
District courts have jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a person

who is “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). Federal habeas corpus is primarily a post-conviction
remedy for state prisoners. Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441–42 (3d Cir. 1975)
(citations omitted) (emphasis added). While district courts have pretrial habeas
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, courts should execute such jurisdiction
“sparingly” to prevent federal pretrial interference of “‘the normal functioning of
state criminal processes.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting
Moore, 515 F.3d at 445–46). Pretrial habeas jurisdiction is improper where it is used
to “derail[] a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional
defenses prematurely in federal court.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Kentucky, 410
U.S. 484, 493. State courts have authority to protect “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.”

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts are
applicable to cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 pursuant to Rule 1(b), the scope of the Rules.
2

2

Moore, 515 F.3d at 442-43 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To
exhaust state court remedies, a petitioner must “invoke one complete round of the
state’s established appellate review process” before he can present his habeas claim to
the federal court. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). In New Jersey,
one must “first presen[t] the claims to the state trial and appellate courts, and in a
petition for review in the New Jersey Supreme Court.” Lincoln v. Owens, No. 16990(RMB), 2016 WL 884641, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 8, 2016) (citing Johnson v. Pinchak,
392 F.3d 551, 556 (3d Cir. 2004)). Petitioner has not exhausted his state court
remedies and he does not present extraordinary circumstances where there is no state
court avenue for relief on his constitutional claims, such as lack of probable cause,
discovery violations and ineffective assistance of counsel. Therefore, the Court will
decline to exercise pretrial habeas jurisdiction.
Petitioner has named Cumberland County Prosecutor’s Office and Metro
State Police as Respondents in this matter. 3 “[T]he default rule is that the proper
respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.” Rumsfeld
v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). Therefore, the Court will dismiss Cumberland
County Prosecutor’s Office and Metro State Police as Respondents.
III.

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

The Court takes judicial notice that Petitioner has filed a civil rights action under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against members or former members of Metro State Police regarding the
arrest underlying his ongoing state criminal prosecution. Cuff v. Zee, 23cv22823
(RMB) (D.N.J).
3

3

A district court should issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A), (2) where the habeas applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right. Where a district court dismisses a habeas petition on
procedural grounds, “a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that
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). Here, jurists of reason would not find it debatable that
Petitioner failed to present extraordinary circumstances to justify exercise of pretrial
habeas jurisdiction over his ongoing state criminal proceedings. Therefore, the
Court will not issue a certificate of appealability on this procedural ruling.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court will dismiss Camden County Prosecutor’s Office and Metro State

Police as Respondents and dismiss the habeas petition without prejudice because
Petitioner has not exhausted his constitutional claims in the states courts. The
Court will deny a certificate of appealability.
An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: June 5, 2024
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
Chief United States District Judge

4