Richardson v. Thomson

Filing 31

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and Recommendation ECF No. 22 of the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 11/20/2015. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Curtis Richardson,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
Phillip Thompson, Sheriff of
)
Horry County,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

Civil Action No.: 4:15-2638-RBH

ORDER

Petitioner, currently confined at J. Reuben Long Detention Center in Conway, South
Carolina and proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241, in which he seeks to be released on bond.
This matter is before the court with the Report and Recommendation [Docket Entry
#22] of Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III, filed on September 30, 2015.1 The
Magistrate Judge recommended that Petitioner’s petition be summarily dismissed on the basis
of failure to exhaust state court remedies and absention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971).
The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to the court. The recommendation
has no presumptive weight. The responsibility to make a final determination remains with the
court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged with making a
de novo determination of those portions of the Report to which specific objection is made, and
the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the

1

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Rogers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and
Local Civil Rule 73.02.

Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
The court is obligated to conduct a de novo review of every portion of the Magistrate
Judge’s report to which objections have been filed. Id. However, the court need not conduct a
de novo review when a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct
the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). In the absence of a timely filed,
specific objection, the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions are reviewed only for clear error. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
Petitioner alleges three grounds for relief. The first ground relates to an arrest on April
14, 2015 on a firearm charge that is pending in state court and for which he was granted
bond. The second ground relates to an arrest for various state charges including drug
offenses, resisting arrest, and obstructing justice on May 2, 2015 for which he was granted
bond. The petitioner has filed no objections regarding these grounds. The Court has reviewed
the Magistrate’s Report for clear error and finds none. As noted by the Magistrate Judge,
state pretrial detainees must present their constitutional arguments to the state court before
seeking a federal writ of habeas corpus. See Dickerson v. State of Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220,
224 (5th Cir. 1987). Also, under the Younger absention doctrine, federal courts should refrain
from interfering with pending state judicial proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
See Satter v. Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259, 1261 (8th Cir. 1992).
The third ground of the petition relates to an arrest on July 29, 2015 “for the same
possession of firearm charge” and for which Petitioner was denied bond. The petitioner’s
objections relate to this ground and will be addressed by the Court.

2

In his objections, Petitioner states that he is a “pre-trial federal and state detainee”.
(Obj., ECF No. 27, p. 1) He states that he seeks release on bond and dismissal of the federal
charges.2 He states that he was arrested again for the same firearm charge and that he should
be given bond in federal court because he was already allowed to be on bond for the same
firearms offense in state court. He further asserts: “The fact that Petitioner is being subjected
to two (2) bond punishments for the same offense violates the double jeopardy clause.” Id., p.
4-5.
In the federal charges pending before the undersigned (4:15-cr-492-RBH), the petitioner
is represented by counsel and had the opportunity to move for bond and to raise any pertinent
constitutional issues.3 “Principles of judicial economy and efficiency weigh against allowing
federal defendants to file separate habeas petitions where an appropriate remedy is available
with the trial court.” Kotmair v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 2d 532, 534 (E.D.N.C. 2001),
“[W]here habeas claims raised by a pretrial detainee would be dispositive of the pending
federal charges, principles of federal court efficiency require that the petitioner exhaust those
claims by presenting them at trial and then on direct appeal.” Id., citing Moore v. U.S., 875
F. Supp. 620, 624 (D.Neb. 1994).

The Court also notes that the petitioner is incorrect that he

is being subjected to double jeopardy. The Supreme Court has held that the Double Jeopardy
Clause is not violated by dual prosecution. Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, 193-94
(1959). “And no law prevents the prosecution of state firearm offenses either before or after a

2

Petitioner does not mention the federal charges in his petition.

3

The federal magistrate judge held a detention hearing and ordered the petitioner to be detained. This Court
reviewed the matter and agreed that pretrial detention was appropriate. (United States v. Curtis Richardson, C/A No. 4:15cr-00492), Docket No. 100.

3

federal criminal prosecution. When a defendant violates both state and federal laws, either the
state or the United States or both may prosecute him.” United States v. Nathan, 202 F.3d
230, 233 (4th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, having reviewed the record and applicable law, this court finds that the
Petitioner has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the
current petition for writ of habeas corpus should be summarily dismissed.
In conclusion, the court adopts and incorporates by reference the Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 22] of the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Florence, South Carolina
November 20, 2015

s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Court

4