PRALL v. DISTRICT COURT
Filing
9
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 4/11/2016. (mmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTR
c
E
E I
v
E D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
APR 12 2016
TORMU E. PRALL,
Petitioner,
AT 8:30
WILLIAM T.
w.
Civil Action CLERK 'ALSH
No. 14-3376 (AET)
v.
OPINION
DISTRICT COURT,
Respondent.
APPEARANCES:
Tormu E. Prall, Plaintiff Pro Se
#700294B/650739
New Jersey State-Prison
P.O. Box 861
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
THOMPSON, District Judge:
I.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is Petitioner Tormu E. Prall's Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
{Petition, Docket Entry 1). For the reasons stated below, the
petition shall be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court
remedies.
I .
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a convicted and sentenced New Jersey state
prisoner presently confined in New Jersey State Prison ("NJSP"),
Trenton, New Jersey. On October 21, 2013, Petitioner filed a
petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
M
in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ("Eastern District"). He
also filed a motion asking the Eastern District not to transfer
his case to the District of New Jersey.
(Docket Entry 2).
Magistrate Judge Henry Perkin recommended the petition should be
transferred to New Jersey as it is the district in which
Petitioner is confined.
(Report & Recommendation, Docket Entry
6). By order dated May 27, 2014, the Honorable Mitchell S.
Goldberg, E.D. Pa., adopted the recommendation and transferred
the petition to this District.
(Order adopting R & R, Docket
Entry 7).
According to the petition, Petitioner has unresolved
charges pending against him in Magisterial District 07-1-11,
Morrisville, Pennsylvania for burglary, criminal trespassing,
theft by unlawful taking, criminal mischief, and receiving
stolen property.
(Petition
~
3). Petitioner contends that as a
result of these untried charges, NJSP placed him into the
management control unit ("MCU") where he is subject to 24-hour
lockdowns, no contact visiting, and limited outdoor and
educational program access.
(Id.
~~
4-5). Petitioner also
alleges he suffers from a variety of ailments, such as panic
disorder, extreme anxiety, stress, depression, and boredom,
~
6), as well as public strip searches,
(Id.
~
(Id.
11), as the
result of being assigned to the MCU. In contrast, he contends
prisoners assigned to administrative segregation, purportedly
2
"the most dangerous and violent prisoners," are given more
opportunities than those assigned to the MCU like Petitioner.
(Id. enen 7-8).
Petitioner asserts he has submitted several motions to the
magisterial district court informing it that "he will continue
to su£fer the ruthless consequences" of the MCU "if not brought
to trial. No corrective action was taken." (Id. en 13). He argues
the MCU "is more restrictive than any other form of
incarceration in New Jersey," and is excessive and grossly
disproportionate to the charges he is facing in Pennsylvania.
(Id. en 12, Count II). He asks the Court to order the
Pennsylvania courts to either bring Petitioner to trial on his
outstanding charges or dismiss them, and to declare NJSP's
actions unconstitutional.
(Id. at 8).
II. 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. Atty. Gen.
of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011), as amended (Sept.
19 , 2 011 )
( citing Est e 11 e v. Gamb 1 e, 4 2 9 U . S . 9 7 , 10 6 ( 19 7 6 ) ) . A
pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be
construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce
3
v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney
General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22
(3d Cir. 1989); United States v.
Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399
U.S. 912
(1970).
Nevertheless, a federal district court must dismiss a
habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of the
petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28
U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule l(bJJ; 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).
III. DISCUSSION
Although Petitioner is a convicted state prisoner in New
Jersey, his petition challenges the detainers lodged against him
by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and their effect upon his
conditions of confinement at NJSP. Thus, this is essentially a
pretrial petition.
Section 2241 authorizes a federal court to issue a writ of
habeas corpus to any pretrial detainee who "'is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.'" Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437, 442 n.5 (3d Cir.
197 5)
(quoting 2 8 U.S. C. § 2241) . "Nevertheless, that
jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent in
the ordinary circumstance 'pre-trial habeas interference by
4
federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal
processes.'" Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App'x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010)
(per curiam)
(quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at 445-46). Addressing the
question whether a federal court should ever grant a pretrial
writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner, the Third Circuit has
held
(1) federal courts have "pre-trial" habeas corpus
jurisdiction;
(2) that jurisdiction without exhaustion should not be
exercised at the pre-trial stage unless extraordinary
circumstances are present;
(3) where there are no extraordinary circumstances and
where petitioner seeks to litigate the merits of a
Constitutional defense to a state criminal charge, 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.
Petitioners seeking to have out-of-state detainers brought
to trial or dismissed must exhaust their remedies under the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers ("IAD") in the state lodging
the detainer before filing a federal habeas petition. Although
Petitioner asserts he has petitioned the Magisterial District
for relief,
(Petition~
13), in order to be deemed exhausted
"[a] claim must be presented not only to the trial court but
also to the state's intermediate court as well as to its supreme
court." Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware Cnty., Pa., 959
5
F.2d 1227, 1230 (3d Cir. 1992). As noted by the Eastern District
magistrate judge, Petitioner has not shown that he has exhausted
his Pennsylvania state court remedies, nor has he demonstrated
extraordinary circumstances.
(Report and Recommendation at 2).
He must do so before he may seek relief under § 2241. See Grant
v. Hogan, 505 F.2d 1220, 1224 (3d Cir. 1974)
(holding that
petitioner must demand a trial and seek relief from the highest
state court before seeking federal habeas corpus relief); see
also Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484
(1973)
(holding habeas relief available where a prisoner has
demanded a speedy trial and has exhausted the remedies of the
indicting state); Mokone v. Fenton, 710 F.2d 998, 1002 (3d Cir.
1983)
("[A] habeas petitioner seeking a speedy trial in another
state, or seeking to bar prosecution of a charge upon which an
out-of-state detainer is based, must exhaust the remedies of the
state where the charge is pending."). As Petitioner has not
exhausted his Pennsylvania state court remedies, relief under §
2241 is not available to Petitioner at this time. 1
Petitioner also asks the Court to review NJSP's use of the
detainers in determining Petitioner's conditions of confinement.
"[A] federal district court in the state or district of
1
Once Petitioner exhausts his Pennsylvania state court remedies,
his challenges to the untried charges should be refiled in the
Eastern District. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Ky. , 410 U . S . 4 8 4 , 4 9 8 - 9 9 ( 19 7 3 ) .
6
confinement may entertain by habeas corpus a prisoner's
challenge to the adverse effects on the conditions of his
confinement resulting from the filing of a foreign detainer."
Norris v. State of Ga., 522 F.2d 1006, 1010 (4th Cir. 1975)
(citing Nelson v. George, 399 U.S. 224 (1970)). Before bringing
this claim in federal habeas, however, Petitioner must exhaust
New Jersey state court remedies. See Grant, 505 F.2d at 1223 n.5
(citing Nelson) .
Nothing in the petition suggests Petitioner has presented
his claim to the New Jersey state courts, and there has been no
showing of special circumstances warranting federal intervention
before said remedies are exhausted. Once Petitioner has
presented and exhausted this claim before the New Jersey state
courts, he may refile his petition challenging NJSP's use of the
detainers in this District.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
stated
above,
the
petition
is
dismissed
without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.
An appropriate order follows.
I~
U.S. District Judge
7
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?