CARTER v. CHARLES
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 11/30/2016. (seb)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ANTHONY RAY CARTER,
Civil Action No. 16-4848 (CCC)
Petitioner,
v.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
CHARLES,
Respondent.
CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 by Petitioner Anthony Ray Carter. The Court has screened the Petition for
summary dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts, applicable to
§ 2241 cases through Rule 1(5). It appearing:
1. According to the Petition, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee awaiting disposition of an alleged
violation of probation and a charge of third degree burglary in the New Jersey state court. (ECF
No. 1 at 1.) Petitioner asserts that he was in jail for another offense when the alleged violation and
crime occurred, and that these charges were a case of mistaken identity. (See Id. at 7.) It also
appears that the state court proceedings for these charges are ongoing. (Id.) Petitioner seeks to
have this Court dismiss the charges against him. (Id. at 8.)
2. However, “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.” Evans v. Ct. of Common Fleas, Del. Cly, Pa., 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992)
(quoting Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. oJKy., 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973)). “The rule barring
pretrial intervention into pending state criminal proceedings by way of federal habeas corpus or
otherwise is premised on the notion of comity, a principle of deference and ‘proper respect’ for
state governmental functions in our federal system.” Id. (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
44 (1971)). “[I]n view of the fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal
prosecutions, even irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ‘both great and immediate.”
Younger, 401 U.S. at 46.
“Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and
inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by themselves
be considered ‘irreparable’ in the special legal sense of that term. Instead, the threat to the
plaintiffs federally protected rights must be one that cannot be eliminated by his defense against
a single criminal prosecution.” Id. “[A]bsent a showing of bad faith or an intent to harass, federal
courts should decline requests to enjoin state criminal prosecutions, ‘particularly
.
.
.
when the
moving party has an adequate remedy’ in state court.” Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm ‘n ofN.Y.
Harbor, 755 F.3d 176, 180 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 43).
3. Here, Petitioner makes no showing that he lacks adequate remedy in state court. Indeed,
nowhere in the Petition does he allege that he raised this defense in state court, and that the state
court has rejected his defense. furthermore, federal law requires a habeas petitioner to exhaust
state court remedies before he can seek federal habeas relief, even when the habeas petitioner is a
pretrial detainee. Braden, 410 U.S. 484, 490-92. While exhaustion does not always require a
pretrial habeas petitioner to wait until the conclusion of his state proceedings to assert a federal
habeas claim, Id., in this case, Petitioner has sought no state remedies at all, falling far short of
satisfying the exhaustion requirement by any definition. Without more, the Court must decline
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas claims pursuant to Braden and Younger, and the claims are
dismissed without prejudice. See Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming
2
dismissal of
§ 2241 petition by a pretrial detainee because his “habeas corpus petition does not
present any extraordinary circumstances and is an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses
prematurely in federal court”).
D at e.
d
‘
-__‘J
“
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.DJ.
3
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?