WALTMAN v. DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF HUDSON COUNTY

Filing 2

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

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