Smith v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry) re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus(Lodged with Motion for IFP) filed by Michael Scott Smith. Signed by Honorable Jennifer P. Wilson on 1/10/2022. (ve)

Case 1:21-cv-01222-JPW-PT Document 13 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MICHAEL SCOTT SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF
COMMON PLEAS, et al.,
Respondents.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Civil No. 1:21-CV-1222

Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM
Self-represented Petitioner Michael Scott Smith, a pretrial detainee housed
at the Franklin County Prison in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, has petitioned for a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking his release from custody and
the cessation of ongoing state criminal proceedings in the Court of Common Pleas
of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1.) Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.)
The petition has been given preliminary consideration and, for the reasons
that follow, will be dismissed without prejudice because there continues to be two
ongoing state court criminal proceedings. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.1

Rule 4 states in pertinent part that: “The clerk must promptly forward the petition to a judge …
and the judge must promptly examine it. If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Rule 1(b)
permits application of these rules to habeas corpus petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
1

Case 1:21-cv-01222-JPW-PT Document 13 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 5

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Smith is presently confined at the Franklin County Prison. (Doc. 1.) There
are currently two active Franklin County Court of Common Pleas cases against
Smith:2 (1) Commonwealth v. Smith, CP-28-CR-0000448-2021 (Franklin Cnty.
C.C.P.) (obstruction admin Law/Other Gov’t Func); and (2) Commonwealth v.
Smith, CP-28-CR-0000449-2021 (Franklin Cnty. C.C.P.) (possession of firearm
prohibited). Smith is represented by counsel and has had bail hearings in both
matters. He was scheduled to proceed to trial in March 2021, however that date
was continued to March 7, 2022. (Id.)
Smith filed the instant petition on July 12, 2021. (Doc. 1.) In his petition he
argues he is being held in violation of U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 3, which
disqualifies an individual from holding a state or federal office if they have
“engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States absent two-thirds
consent of Congress. (Doc. 1, p. 6.)3 Next, Smith claims the Franklin Country
proceedings violate the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy clause. (Id.) Finally,
he asserts the “Franklin County Court is violating a free person who has not taken
an oath to support [the] Constitution” and is detaining him to “coerce and extort[ ]”

The court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s state court criminal dockets available through
Pennsylvania’s Unified Judicial Docket System at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/ (last visited on
Jan. 9, 2022).
2

3

For ease of reference, the court utilizes the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.

2

Case 1:21-cv-01222-JPW-PT Document 13 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 5

him to gain a conviction. (Id.) The petitioner is seeking to have the court
immediately release him and to hold the prosecuting authority “criminally
responsible.” (Id., p. 7.)
JURISDICTION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a prisoner or detainee may receive habeas relief
only if he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d
437, 441 (3d Cir. 1975). Federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 to issue the writ before a judgment is rendered in state criminal
proceedings. Id. at 441–42; see also Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir.
2010) (stating “[S]ection 2241 authorizes a federal court to issue a writ of habeas
corpus to any pre-trial detainee who is in custody in violation of the Constitution or
laws or treaties of the United States.”) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). As Smith is a pretrial detainee asserting a constitutional challenge to his
detention, the matter is appropriately considered a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Paladino v. King, 247 F. App’x 393, 394 (3d Cir. 2007).
DISCUSSION
Although § 2241 may be an available avenue of relief for Smith to challenge
his pretrial detention, principles of comity dictate that absent unusual
circumstances, a federal court is not to intervene in ongoing state court proceedings

3

Case 1:21-cv-01222-JPW-PT Document 13 Filed 01/10/22 Page 4 of 5

unless “irreparable injury” is both “great and immediate.” Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 46 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction when the following conditions are met: “(1) there are ongoing state
proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal claims.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670
(3d Cir. 2010). However, Younger abstention is not appropriate when “(1) the
state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment
or (2) some other extraordinary circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant
to a flagrantly unconstitutional statute”. Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d
Cir. 1989). These exceptions are to be narrowly construed. Loftus v. Twp. of
Lawrence Park, 764 F. Supp. 354, 357 (W.D. Pa. 1991). Moreover, it is well
established that when a petitioner seeks to “challenge the charges against him,” he
should “do so through pretrial motions in his criminal case, not via a pretrial §
2241 petition.” Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 2018).
Even liberally construing the petition in this case, as is appropriate since
Smith is self-represented, it appears that all three Younger conditions are met. It is
evident from the state court electronic docket sheets and contents of the habeas
petition that Smith is engaged in ongoing criminal proceedings which implicate
important state interests and he is actively engaged in defense of those

4

Case 1:21-cv-01222-JPW-PT Document 13 Filed 01/10/22 Page 5 of 5

proceedings. Both matters are presently scheduled for trial in March 2022.
Because there is relief available at the state court level, there is an absence of
extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this court. Thus,
out of deference to the state court judicial process, it is appropriate to abstain from
entertaining this petition. Indeed, “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal
court to stay its hand pending the completion of state proceedings more evident
than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.” Evans v. Court of Common
Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992).
DISCUSSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court will grant Smith’s motion to
proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 2, but dismiss the petition for writ of habeas
corpus without prejudice, Doc. 1. An appropriate order will issue.

s/ Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Court Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: January 10, 2022

5