NABAYA v. U.S. ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 04/16/2018. (Copy mailed to Petitioner Nabaya).(smej, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Civil Action No. 3:17CV731
Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, submitted a petition for a wTit of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and paid the required filing fee.' By Memorandum Order
entered on March 2, 2018, the Court directed Petitioner to show cause why the action should not
be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner pursuing any claim in his criminal case or any direct
appeal therefrom. (ECF No. 12.) Petitioner has responded. (ECFNo. 13.) Petitioner asserts
' In March 2017, Petitioner filed a civil lawsuit in the District Court for the District of
Columbia against individuals involved in Petitioner's criminal case, including the prosecutors,
the defending attorneys. Magistrate Judge Novak, the probation officer, and the undersigned.
Nabaya v. Aber, eto/., No. 17cv440 (D.D.C.) (ECF Nos. 1, 4.); also United States v. Nabaya,
No. 3;17cr3 (Apr. 7,2017 Mem. Order, ECF No. 51 at 2—3 & n. 1)(Petitioner's criminal case in
the EasternDistrict of Virginia). The District of Columbia civil case has since been dismissed.
Nabaya v. Aber, No. CV 17-440 (UK), 2018 WL 1583311, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2018).
On April 11, 2017, the undersigned conducted a hearing and addressed, inter alia,
petitioner's continued request that the undersigned recuse herself. By Memorandum Opinion
dated April 19,2017, the undersigned overruled Petitioner's recusal request. United States v.
Nabaya, No. 3:17CR3, 2017 WL 1424802, at *3 (E.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2017). "As held by Judge
Novak in response to a similar request by Nabaya, '[t]he D.C. Lawsuit does not constitute
grounds for the undersigned's recusal, as Defendant 'cannot be allowed to create the basis for
recusal by [his] own deliberate actions.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting April 7, 2017 Mem.
Order 3 n.l)); see also id. No. 3:17CR3, Mem. Op., ECF No. 164 at 5 & n.8) (reiterating Court's
previous overruling of Petitioner's recusal request).
Because the undersigned has presided over Petitioner's criminal trial and because the
undersigned has repeatedly found no conflict orbasis to recuse herself, the undersigned will
address this Petition despite the fact that Petitioner had a pending lawsuit against the
that he should be allowed to proceed with his § 2241 Petition because he has raised a speedy trial
It is well settled that, "[t]o be eligible for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a
federal pretrial detainee must first exhaust other available remedies." LeSane v. United States,
No. 3:08cv247, 2008 WL 4154303, at *1 (E.D. Va. Sept. 5, 2008)
U.S. 390, 391-92 (1918)), aff'd, 308 F. App'x 694 (4th Cir. 2009);
Jones v. Perkins, 245
Jones, 245 U.S. at 391-
92 (citations omitted) ("It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in
criminal cases the regularjudicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be
granted in advance of a trial."). Although Petitioner's federal criminal trial has concluded,
Petitioner remains free to pursueany properly preserved speedy trial challenge on direct appeal.
See LeSane, 2008 WL 4154303, at *1 ("Because Petitioner has not pursued any appeal
concerning his speedy trial challenges, he is precluded from litigating them in his present petition
for a writ of habeas corpus."). Accordingly, the § 2241 Petition will be DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The action will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
An appropriate Order shall accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
APR 1 6 2018
•j ; • I
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?