United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CROW U.S. Senior District Judge.
matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 by a pretrial detainee held in the Geary County
Detention Center. Petitioner proceeds pro se, and the Court
grants leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
is in pretrial detention and is the subject of three pending
criminal actions. He seeks dismissal of the charges and
petition also alleges the petitioner has been assaulted by
correctional officers, held in maximum security, and denied
access to his legal documents for approximately three months.
“essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in
custody upon the legality of that custody, and the
traditional function of the writ is to secure release from
illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 484 (1973).
2241 provides limited jurisdiction that allows a federal
district court to consider habeas corpus challenges by a
pretrial detainee. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d
1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007). However, a pretrial
detainee ordinarily must exhaust other available remedies
before proceeding in federal habeas corpus under § 2241.
See Hall v. Pratt, 97 Fed.Appx. 246, 247-48
(10th Cir. 2004).
while petitioner commenced a petition for habeas corpus in
the state district court, that matter remains pending on its
docket. Petitioner therefore has not yet exhausted
available state court remedies, and, although he complains of
inactivity in that case, this Court has no supervisory or
appellate authority to direct the state courts in the
management of their dockets. See Knox v. Bland, 632
F.3d 1290, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011)(“To the
extent that [plaintiff] is seeking relief in the nature of
mandamus, ordering Defendants to take action in their
capacities as state judges, ‘[w]e have no authority to
issue such a writ to direct state courts or their judicial
officers in the performance of their
duties.'”)(quoting Van Sickle v. Holloway,
791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n. 5 (10th Cir. 1986)).
even if the Court could find that petitioner has properly
exhausted available state court remedies, a federal court
generally is prohibited from interfering with an ongoing
state criminal action. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37, 53-54 (1971). Younger abstention is appropriate
where “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the
state proceedings implicate important state interests; and
(3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to
present the federal constitutional challenges.”
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889
(10th Cir. 1997).
the state court actions were filed before petitioner brought
this action, and the state has an important interest in
conducting criminal proceedings for violations of its laws.
Finally, it is recognized that “ordinarily a pending
state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient
opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional
rights.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124
petitioner presents claims that are not properly brought in a
habeas corpus action. His claims alleging mistreatment by
correctional officers, custody in maximum segregation, and
access to his legal property are claims challenging the
conditions of his confinement, and such claims brought by a
state or county prisoner must be presented in a civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See McIntosh v.
United States Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12
(10thCir. 1997)(contrasting habeas and civil
petition for habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice to
allow petitioner to complete the exhaustion of state court
remedies. Petitioner's claims concerning the conditions
of his confinement are dismissed ...