United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.
actions are petitions for habeas corpus filed by a pretrial
detainee held in the Douglas County Jail, Lawrence, Kansas.
Petitioner filed Case No. 17-3047 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and Case No. 17-3048 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The Court
has conducted an initial screening of these actions, and,
finding them to be essentially identical, consolidates them
for ruling. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(2)(“
[i]f actions before the court involve a common question of
law or fact, the court may … consolidate the
actions, petitioner alleges broadly that he was coerced to
attend court, that he was there denied due process and trial
by jury, that he is being illegally held under the name of a
limited liability corporation, and that the “so-called
victim” was arrested for lying and sent to prison. He
seeks the dismissal of the charges pending against him and
district court must review a petition for habeas corpus
promptly and must summarily dismiss the matter “[i]f it
plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief….”
Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
pretrial detainee may challenge his confinement under 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d
1227 (10th Cir. 2007)(considering a double jeopardy claim
presented under Section 2241 in a petition filed by a
pretrial detainee). However, a federal court should abstain
from exercising its jurisdiction in a pretrial habeas corpus
action if the claims presented by the petitioner may be
resolved either by a trial on the merits or by other
available state court remedies. Capps v. Sullivan,
13 F.3d 350, 354 n. 2 (10th Cir. 1993).
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the U.S.
Supreme Court held that a federal court should not intervene
in a state criminal action filed before the commencement of
the federal action where the state court proceedings: (1) are
ongoing; (2) implicate important state interests; and (3)
provide an adequate forum to present the petitioner's
federal claims. Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall,
341 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003). Where these conditions
are met, a federal court should intervene only “in
cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by
state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a
valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary
circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”
Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).
the state court action against petitioner is ongoing, and the
State has an important interest in conducting criminal
proceedings against those charged with violations of state
criminal law. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49
(1986)(“the States' interest in administering their
criminal justice systems free from federal interference is
one of the most powerful of the considerations that should
influence a court considering equitable types of
relief.”) Petitioner does not suggest any reason why
the Kansas state courts cannot provide a fair forum for him
to present any federal claims, nor does he suggest the state
proceedings were brought for a patently improper purpose.
failure to exhaust state court remedies provides a second
basis for the dismissal of this action. A petitioner seeking
federal habeas corpus relief under Section 2241 must first
seek relief from the state courts, including the state
appellate courts. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d
862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000)(“A habeas petitioner is
generally required to exhaust state remedies whether his
action is brought under § 2241 or § 2254.”)
Petitioner does not show that he has exhausted his claims by
presenting them to the state courts.
Court concludes this consolidated matter must be dismissed
without prejudice. There is no ground shown for federal
intervention in the state criminal proceedings against
petitioner, nor has petitioner exhausted available state
Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability
in this matter because petitioner has not made a substantial
showing that jurists of reason would find the resolution of
this matter to be debatable.
THEREFORE, BY THE COURT ORDERED these actions are
consolidated and ...