Olivier v. Tennessee, State of et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Because it appears from the petitioner's submission that he is unable to pay the filing fee, his IFP application (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. For these reasons, and those previously set forth by the court in the petition er's previous case, this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice to the petitioner's ability to refile upon the exhaustion of his state court remedies. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 6/1/2017. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

MARDOCHE OLIVIER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 3:17-cv-00837
JUDGE TRAUGER

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Presently before the court are the petitioner’s pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1), and his application to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) (ECF No. 2.) Because it appears from the petitioner’s submission that he is unable to pay
the filing fee, his IFP application (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED.
The petition in this case is identical in all respects to the petition previously dismissed in
Olivier v. Tennessee, et al., No. 3:17-cv-0832 (M.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017), except that each
petition refers to a different state criminal action. In both cases, the petitioner, who is free on
bail awaiting trial in Montgomery County, has alleged that his constitutional rights have been
violated in connection with his arrest and pending prosecution on state criminal charges. He
has further alleged that he has been unable to have his claims adjudicated by a state court,
because Tennessee courts will not entertain an appeal or habeas corpus action until after a
defendant is convicted. He asks the court to order the Montgomery County Court to dismiss the
case against him and order him released from his bond. (ECF No. 1, at 8.)
The Supreme Court has cautioned that “federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent
‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal
charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court,” and explained that

Early federal intervention in state criminal proceedings would tend to remove
federal questions from the state courts, isolate those courts from constitutional
issues, and thereby remove their understanding of and hospitality to federally
protected interests. [Exhaustion doctrine] preserves orderly administration of
state judicial business, preventing the interruption of state adjudication by federal
habeas proceedings.
Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489, 490 (1973) (quoting Note,
Developments in the Law–Federal Habeas Corpus, 83 Harv. L. Rev. 1038, 1094 (1970)). The
court thus found that the district court had properly granted relief on a fully exhausted speedy
trial claim, but “emphasize[d] that nothing we have said would permit the derailment of a
pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in federal
court,” and rejected the notion that its decision would “convert[] federal habeas corpus into ‘a
pretrial-motion forum for state prisoners.’” Id. at 493.
Likewise, the Sixth Circuit has observed that exercise of the court’s power under § 2241
should be limited:
[A]lthough § 2241 establishes jurisdiction in the federal courts to consider pretrial
habeas corpus petitions, the courts should abstain from the exercise of that
jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on
the merits in the state courts or by other state procedures available to the
petitioner. Abstention from the exercise of the habeas corpus jurisdiction is
justified by the doctrine of comity, a recognition of the concurrent jurisdiction
created by our federal system of government in the separate state and national
sovereignties. Intrusion into state proceedings already underway is warranted
only in extraordinary circumstances.
Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981) (internal citations omitted).

Indeed,

federal courts have generally recognized that the “Younger abstention doctrine,” arising from
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), applies to petitions for the writ of habeas corpus. See,
e.g., In re Justices of Superior Ct. Dep’t of Mass. Tr. Ct., 218 F.3d 11, 17–18 (1st Cir. 2000)
(applying abstention principles to pretrial habeas petition); Davis v. Lansing, 851 F.2d 72, 76 (2d
Cir. 1988) (affirming dismissal of pretrial habeas petition on abstention grounds). The Younger
abstention doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from interfering with pending state civil or
criminal proceedings involving important state interests, absent extraordinary circumstances.
2

Younger, 401 U.S. at 44; see Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391–92 (1918) (“It is well settled
that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure
should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.”).
The petitioner’s case implicates Tennessee’s important interest in adjudicating alleged
criminal conduct, and he has not alleged any extraordinary circumstances warranting this
court’s intervention before allowing time for him to present his constitutional claims to
Tennessee courts during the normal course of his criminal case. For these reasons, and those
previously set forth by the court in the petitioner’s previous case, Olivier v. Tennessee, et al.,
No. 3:17-cv-0832 (M.D. Tenn. May 25, 2017), this matter is DISMISSED without prejudice to the
petitioner’s ability to refile upon the exhaustion of his state court remedies.
Because the petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional
violation in this matter, a certificate of appealability is DENIED. See Castro v. United States, 310
F.3d 900 (6th Cir. 2002) (“A petitioner is entitled to a COA only if he ‘has made a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.’ 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).”).
It is so ORDERED.

ALETA A. TRAUGER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3