Nabaya v. Probation Dept. et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 3/8/2017. (sbea, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
SHAPAT NABAYA,
Petitioner,
v.
PROBATION DEPT. and
PATRICIA LOCKET-ROSS,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 3:17CV149-HEH

MEMORANDUM OPINION
(Dismissing Action)
On January 11, 2017, Nabaya was charged in a two-count federal indictment with
retaliating against a federal officer by filing false claims (Count One) and filing a false
statement in bankruptcy (Count Two). Indictment at 1-6, United States v. Nabaya,
3:17CR03 (E.D. Va. filed Jan. 11, 2017). On February 6, 2017, Nabaya was released
under supervision pending trial. See Order Setting Conditions of Release, United States
v. Nabaya, 3:17CR03 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 6, 2017). On February 16, 2017, Nabaya filed

the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 1
In his § 2241 Petition, Nabaya contends that he is entitled to relief because, inter
a/ia, "he was arrested without probable cause," (§ 2241 Pet. 7), "he was denied due

process," (id. at 8), and he "was denied that right to cross examine his accuser and their
evidence,"(id.). Nabaya demands "relief from an unconstitutional confinement" and
monetary damages. (Id. at 8.)

1

The Court corrects the capitalization in the quotations to Nabaya's submissions.

To be eligible for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal pretrial
detainee must first exhaust other available remedies. See, e.g., 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."). Thus, "courts routinely dismiss as
premature habeas petitions filed during the defendant's criminal trial and raising claims
that should be addressed as part of the criminal proceedings." Elkins v. United States,
No. 7:12CV00058, 2012 WL 1016066, at *1 (W.D. Va. Mar. 23, 2012) (citing Jn re

Williams, 306 F. App'x 818, 819 (4th Cir. 2009); Meyers v. Mukasey, No. 3:08CV581,
2009 WL 210715, at* 1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2009)). As Nabaya fails to demonstrate that
he has exhausted other available judicial remedies, the § 2241 Petition will be dismissed.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

~
Isl
HENRY E. HUDSON

L,i.

Date:
B 2011
Richmond, Virgfnia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2