Pearson v. Lucus

Filing 2

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 10/21/2020: DENYING 1 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus; DISMISSING CASE without prejudice for failure to exhaust; and DENYING Certificate of Appealability. (cc: all counsel, via mail to Mario Pearson at Milwaukee County Jail)(jm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MARIO PEARSON,
Petitioner,

Case No. 20-CV-1045-JPS

v.
ERNELL LUCAS,

ORDER
Respondent.

On July 10, 2020, petitioner Mario Pearson (“Petitioner”) filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket
#1). He is currently being held as a pre-trial detainee. Petitioner alleges that
he has suffered a violation of his right to a speedy trial in violation of the
Sixth Amendment, an unconstitutional arrest in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and an unconstitutional identification procedure in violation
of the Sixth Amendment. (Id. at 6). He acknowledges that he has not filed
an appeal or a grievance, or otherwise sought an administrative remedy.
(Id. at 2–3).
Publicly available records confirm this. On July 30, 2019, a complaint
was filed in Milwaukee County charging Petitioner with one count of firstdegree reckless injury and one count of felony bail jumping. Milwaukee
County

Circuit

Court

Case

No.

2019CF3316

available

at

https://wcca.wicourts.gov. That same day, a warrant issued. Petitioner was
taken into custody on September 27, 2019. Proceedings moved towards trial
until December 13, 2019, when defense counsel informed the court that he
believed Petitioner was not competent to stand trial. The Court ordered
Petitioner to undergo a competency evaluation. On January 13, 2020, a

second evaluation was ordered. On May 5, 2020, a contested competency
hearing was held, and the court determined that Petitioner was competent
to proceed. The case was scheduled for trial on August 24, 2020. At the final
pretrial hearing, however, Petitioner accepted the government’s final plea
offer. On August 18, 2020, a plea colloquy was held, during which
Petitioner pled guilty to the first charge. It appears that Petitioner has yet to
be sentenced. While the record in this case is long, it is also detailed. There
is no indication that Petitioner raised the issue of his allegedly
unconstitutional confinement in the Wisconsin state court proceeding.
Section 2241 allows pre-trial detainees to challenge their continued
confinement. However, as the Seventh Circuit explains, Section 2241
petitions offer very limited avenues for relief:
Federal courts must abstain from interfering with state
court criminal proceedings involving important state
interests, as long as the state court provides an opportunity to
raise the federal claims and no “exceptional circumstances”
exist. Stroman Realty, Inc., v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658, 662 (7th
Cir. 2007). See also [Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971)].
Relief for state pretrial detainees through a federal petition for
a writ of habeas corpus is generally limited to speedy trial and
double jeopardy claims, and only after the petitioner has
exhausted state-court remedies.
Olsson v. Curran, 328 F. App’x 334, 335 (7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added);
Tran v. Bartow, 210 F. App’x 538, 540 (7th Cir. 2006). While Petitioner has
alleged a violation of his right to a speedy trial, it does not appear that he
has exhausted his state court remedies. A district court may not address the
merits of the constitutional claims raised in a federal habeas petition “unless
the state courts have had a full and fair opportunity to review them.” Farrell
v. Lane, 939 F.2d 409, 410 (7th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, a state prisoner is

Page 2 of 4

required to exhaust the remedies available in state court before a district
court will consider the merits of a federal habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b)(1)(A); Dressler v. McCaughtry, 238 F.3d 908, 912 (7th Cir. 2001) (if
petitioner “either failed to exhaust all available state remedies or raise all
claims before the state courts, his petition must be denied without
considering its merits.”). A petitioner exhausts his constitutional claim
when he presents it to the highest state court for a ruling on the merits.
Lieberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665, 669 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Picard v. Connor,
404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971); Perruquet v. Briley, 390 F.3d 505, 513 (7th Cir. 2004)).
Once the state’s highest court has had a full and fair opportunity to pass
upon the merits of the claim, a prisoner is not required to present it again
to the state courts. Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U.S. 504, 516 n.18 (1972).
Here, there is no evidence that Petitioner sought review of his
allegedly unconstitutional confinement from the highest court in
Wisconsin. On these grounds alone, this Court must deny the petition.
Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases provides that a “district
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not
covered by Rule 1(a)” i.e., Section 2254 petitions. Therefore, the Court will
apply these rules to this Section 2241 case to determine whether to issue a
certificate of appealability. Under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, “the district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” To
obtain a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Petitioner
must make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”
by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that
matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different
manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
Page 3 of 4

encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003) (internal citations omitted). No reasonable jurists could debate
whether this Court’s procedural ruling was correct. As a consequence, the
Court is compelled to deny a certificate of appealability as to Petitioner’s
petition.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Docket #1) be and the same is hereby
DENIED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same is
hereby DISMISSED without prejudice for failure to exhaust; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability be and
the same is hereby DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 21st day of October, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 4 of 4