Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dismissing Petition w/out prejudice. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 8/23/17. (sr, )(N/M)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JEFFERY WALTMAN, Civil Action No.: 17-3500 (CCC) Petitioner, v. : MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HUDSON COUNTY, Respondent. This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 flied by Petitioner Jeffery Waitman, raising a speedy thai challenge to a pending New Jersey charge that began in November 2013. (ECF No. 1 at 1-2). Subsequent to that arrest and charge, and while on bail, Petitioner was charged and convicted in the State of Louisiana, and is currently serving a ten-year sentence in Louisiana for that conviction. (Id. at 2). New Jersey lodged a detainer against Petitioner on February 6, 2015. (Id.). Petitioner avers that he still has not been brought to trial by the State of New Jersey, in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Although a speedy trial challenge may be brought by a detainee who has not yet been tried in a criminal proceeding, see Braden v 30th Judicial Circuit Court ofKy., 410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973), to bring such a challenge in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner is required to exhaust state court remedies. See Id. at 490. Here, Petitioner concedes that he did not file a speedy trial motion with the trial court until February 14, 2017, a mere three months prior to the filing of the instant Petition. (ECF No. 1 at 3). Petitioner asserts that the trial court has yet to rule on the motion, but three months is simply not long enough for this Court to find that the trial court violated Petitioner’s rights by ignoring the speedy trial motion, thereby rendering exhaustion futile. furthermore, there is also no allegation Petitioner sought relief from higher courts of New Jersey on the ground that the trial court refused to entertain his speedy trial motion. Under these facts, the Court cannot find that Petitioner has satisfied his burden of exhaustion, and the Petition is therefore dismissed.’ See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to cases through Rule 1(b) (“If it plainly appears from the petition. . . § 2241 that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition[.]”). ITlSthereforeonthis /_)_) dayof ,2017, ORDERED the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by regular mail, and shall CLOSE the file. Claire C. Cecchi, U.S.D.J. 1 The Court understands Petitioner’s contention that he has notified the prosecuting authorities on numerous occasions over the years about his speedy trial claim. Unfortunately, it is not relevant to the exhaustion analysis. It may be relevant, however, in any speedy trial claim Petitioner raises in state court or, eventually, on federal habeas after exhaustion. 2

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?