Maxwell v. State of Oklahoma et al

Filing 4

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Ronald A. White : Denying 2 as moot Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. This action is, in all respects DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (acg, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
JASON E. MAXWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 18-069-RAW-SPS

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated in the Okmulgee County Jail
in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights complaint under the authority of 42 U.S.C. §
1983.

He alleges he has been denied his constitutional rights of due process, equal

protection, and a speedy trial.1 He seeks relief in the form of dismissal of his pending
charges and his release from custody (Dkt. 1 at 5). The requested relief, however, is not
available in this action.
“[A] prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement . . . must do so
through an application for habeas corpus.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035
(10th Cir. 2012) (citing McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir.
1997)). A state pretrial detainee may bring a habeas action in federal court to “demand
enforcement of the [State’s] affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to
trial.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 490 (1973) (citation omitted).
He, however, may not seek habeas relief to forestall state prosecution altogether. See id. at
490-91; Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that pretrial habeas
petition can only seek to force the state to go to trial). Therefore, if Plaintiff wants to pursue

1

Plaintiff does not state which of his criminal cases he is challenging.

his claim regarding a speedy trial, he must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, after exhausting available state court remedies. See Montez v. McKinna,
208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS
MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2018.

Dated this 8th day of May, 2018.
J4h4i0

2