Hernandez v. J.S. WILLIS
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Judge Kathleen Cardone. (mn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION
SALVADOR HERNANDEZ, JR.
Reg. No. 53357-008,
Petitioner,
v.
J.S. WILLIS, Warden,
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
EP-15-CV-401-KC
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
In a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. ' 2241, Petitioner
Salvadore Hernandez, Jr., an inmate confined at the La Tuna Federal Correctional Institution in
Anthony, Texas,1 asserts a city court in Tucson, Arizona, has violated his speedy trial and due
process rights by refusing to act on multiple criminal and traffic cases pending against him until his
“release from the correctional facility.”2 Hernandez asks the Court to intervene in his behalf and
order the Tucson city court to dismiss all cases pending against him and to withdraw all warrants
and detainers.3 After reviewing the record and for the reasons discussed below, the Court will
dismiss Hernandez=s petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2243, because it appears from its face that
1
Anthony is located in El Paso County, Texas, which is within the territorial limits of the
Western District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. ' 124(d)(3) (2012).
2
Pet’r’s Mot., Ex. A, p. 5 (Mot. to Dismiss Case Nos. CR96072579, CR98216266,
TR97214472, TR97249180, and TR97259336, Tucson City Court), ECF No. 1-2. “ECF No.” in
this context refers to the Electronic Case Filing number for documents docketed in this case.
Where a discrepancy exists between page numbers on filed documents and page numbers assigned
by the ECF system, the Court will use the latter page numbers.
3
Pet’r’s Mot. 8, ECF No. 1-1.
1
he is not entitled to relief.4
A federal court may exercise jurisdiction where an individual in custody brings a petition
for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, regardless of whether a state court has rendered a final
judgment.5 However, a federal court “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 court or by
other state procedures available to the petitioner.”6 Accordingly, “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.”7 The sixth amendment right to
a speedy trial does not qualify “as a per se ‘special circumstance’ that obviates the exhaustion
requirement.”8 Indeed, federal courts consistently deny habeas relief on speedy trial claims on
exhaustion and federalism grounds.9 Furthermore, “claims of actual prejudice in violation of the
due process clause of the fourteenth amendment are only examined where the applicable statute of
4
28 U.S.C. ' 2243 (2012) (“A court ... entertaining an application for a writ of habeas
corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why
the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person
detained is not entitled thereto.”).
5
For a discussion of the distinction between post-trial habeas corpus relief under section
2254 and pre-trial relief under section 2241, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky,
410 U.S. 484, 503-04 (1973) (Rehnquist, J. dissenting); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441-42
(3d Cir. 1975).
6
Dickerson v. State of La., 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987) (citations omitted).
7
Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
8
Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 227.
9
Id.
2
limitations fails to offer relief for the preindictment delay.”10 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
has “not found any case . . . where pre-trial habeas relief has been used to adjudicate a defendant’s
due process claim that could also be raised during his trial in state court.”11
Hernandez’s sixth amendment speedy trial and fourteenth amendment due process claims
amount to affirmative defenses. Hernandez can present both defenses in the Tucson city court
before his trial. After Hernandez concludes the Tucson city court proceedings and exhausts his
state remedies, he may institute federal habeas proceedings. Pre-trial habeas relief is simply not
available on Hernandez’s claims.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Hernandez=s pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 2241 is DENIED and his cause is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions in this cause, if any, are DENIED
as MOOT.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
SIGNED this 8th day of January, 2016.
KATHLEEN CARDONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
Id. at 228.
11
Id. at 229.
3
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?