Opinion
Civil Action 22-507
02-01-2024
EBEN BROWN, Petitioner, v. WARDEN ORLANDO HARPER; DEPUTY WARDEN ADAM SMITH; COUNTY EXECUTIVE RICH FITZGERALD; THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY; and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondents.
Re: ECF No. 31
Cathy Bissoon District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as Moot (the “Motion to Dismiss”), ECF No. 31, be granted. Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”), ECF No. 14, should be dismissed as moot. Ground Two should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of appealability should be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
Eben Brown (“Petitioner”) filed a habeas petition on March 30,2022, challenging his pretrial detention at Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”) at Case Number CP-02-CR-767-2019. ECF No. 1-1 at 7. This case was stayed on December 1, 2022, due to Petitioner's commitment to a state hospital to receive inpatient treatment. ECF No. 6 at 1. On April 17, 2023, after learning that Petitioner's inpatient treatment had ended, this Court issued an order to show cause why the stay should not be lifted. ECF No. 8. On May 11,2023, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen this case, ECF No. 11, which was denied without prejudice on May 15,2023, based on the need for Petitioner to cure various filing deficiencies. ECF Nos. 10 and 12. On May 18, 2023, Petitioner paid the filing fee, thus curing the remaining deficiencies, and the Petition was formally filed. ECF Nos. 13 and 14. The stay was lifted on May 19,2023. ECF No. 15. The Petition was ordered to be served on June 7,2023. ECF No. 20.
After two extensions of time, ECF Nos. 24, 25, 28, and 28, Respondents filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 31. Respondents argue that the Petition now is moot because, on September 28,2023, Petitioner pleaded guilty but mentally ill in his underlying criminal case. Id. at 4; ECF No. 31-2at 18. While Respondents provided a printout of the docket in Petitioner's criminal case as an exhibit to their motion, the electronic docket appears not to be available for public view on the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System website. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch (last visited Jan. 4, 2024). It is unclear whether Petitioner has yet been sentenced.
The docket printout filed by Respondents indicates that Petitioner initially was charged with criminal homicide, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2501(a), but that charge was replaced at some point with third degree murder, in violation of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 2502(c). ECF No. 31 -2 at 2 and 5-6. It does not appear that any other charges were pending against Petitioner in that case.
Petitioner was ordered to respond to the Motion to Dismiss on or before November 6, 2023. ECF No. 32. He failed to do. On November 21,2023, an Order to Show Cause was issued directing Petitioner to show good cause why this case should not be dismissed due to Petitioner's failure to prosecute. ECF No. 33. In response, Petitioner submitted what he called “Exhibit A,” which appears to be a supplemental police report by the police officer who arrested him on the night of the murder. ECF No. 34. Nothing in the filing was responsive to the Motion to Dismiss. IT
Petitioner raised four grounds for relief in his Petition. In the first, he argues that he is immune to the charges against him under state law. In the second, he asserts a conditions of confinement claim challenging the medical care that he received for a COVID-19 infection. In the third, he states that Petitioner does not have the burden to prove self-defense at trial, and alleges that the prosecution in his underlying criminal case had not turned over exculpatory evidence in its possession. Finally, in the fourth, he raises a speedy trial claim. ECF No. 14 at 7-9.
B. Discussion
1. Grounds One, Three, and Four are moot.
Federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to issue a writ of habeas corpus before a state court criminal judgment is entered against the petitioner. Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437,441-42 (3d Cir. 1975). “[S]ection2241 authorizes a federal court to issue a writ of habeas corpus to any pre-trial detainee who is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Duran v. Thomas, 393 Fed.Appx. 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Petitioner's guilty plea moots Grounds One, Three, and Four of this federal Petition under Section 2241. See, e.g., Quarles v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-1994,2014 WL 99448, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2014) (citations omitted); Padilla v. Brewington-Carr, No. 98-661, 2002 WL 100572, at *2 (D. Del. Jan. 22,2002). Thome v. Warden, Brooklyn House of Detention of Men, 479 F.2d 297,299 (2d Cir. 1973) (legality of habeas petitioner's pre-trial detention mooted by conviction); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988) (same); Miller v. Glanz, 331 Fed.Appx. 608, 610 (10th Cir. 2009) (same); Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841,843 (7th Cir. 2015) (same); Rice v. State of Pennsylvania, No. 16-767, 2016 WL 3287573, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 26, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 3181903 (E.D. Pa. June 8,2016) (“Rice's subsequent conviction renders moot his petition for pretrial release and for the dismissal of those charges. We thus conclude that Rice's § 2241 petition should be dismissed in its entirety although without prejudice to the filing of any future § 2254 petition concerning his state court judgment.”). See also Stewart-Odom v. United States, 162 F.3d 95, 95 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Robert Frank Stewart-Odom, Sr., filed a notice of appeal from the district court denial of his pretrial petition for federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because a judgment of conviction has been rendered against Stewart-Odom, his bail issue is moot.”).
Ground One also raises self-defense under state law as a basis for the writ. ECF No. 14 at 6 (citing 18Pa. C.S.A. § 505(b)(2.3)). But this is a defense to the charge that Petitioner was facing, not a basis for release under Section 2241. 28 U.S.C. §2241(c) (“The writ ofhabeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless - (3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States[.]”). Not only is this moot as a basis for relief under Section 2241 now that Petitioner has pleaded guilty, it is not cognizable as a basis for relief because it does not assert a violation of the Constitution of the United States or federal law. Further, to the extent that Petitioner sought intervention by this Court in his then-pending state prosecution based on Ground One, he failed to establish justification for doing so. See, e.g., Bakery. Reitz, No. 18-2330,2018 WL 6574782, at *2-3 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 13,2018) (discussing the application of the abstention doctrine set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and denying the writ under Section 2241 for a claim of insufficient evidence because all three Younger factors weighed in favor of abstention, and the petitioner had not demonstrated the applicability of any of the narrow exceptions thereto).
Accordingly, this Court should dismiss Grounds One, Three, and Four of the habeas petition under Section 2241 as moot. Dismissal should be without prejudice to raising any claim in a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, if appropriate. A certificate of appealability should be denied because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable. See, e.g., Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
2, Ground Two should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4.
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss the Petition if it plainly appears on its face that the Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
“Courts have used Rule 4 of the habeas corpus rules to summarily dismiss facially insufficient habeas petitions brought under § 2241. Howard v. Haley, 2001 WL 303534, * 1 (S.D. Ala. March 8, 2001); Howard v. Certain Unnamed Aircraft Pilots, 1995 WL 431150, *2 (N.D. Ill. July 18,1995). Because the petition is facially insufficient, it will be dismissed.” Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F.Supp.2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Accord United States v, Recinos- Gallegos, 151 F.Supp.2d 659 (D. Md. 2001) (dismissing petition construed as Section 2241 pursuant to Rule 4). See also Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F.Supp.2d 575, 577 (N.D. Tex. 2001) (“The Supreme Court intended the 2254 Rules to apply to petitions filed under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the 2254 Rules”); Ukawabutu v. Morton, 997 F.Supp. 605,608 n.2 (D.N. J. 1998)(“I refer to these rules [i.e., Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases] as the “Habeas Corpus Rules” because they apply to petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as well as 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”); Wyant v. Edwards, 952 F.Supp. 348,352 (S.D. W.Va. 1997)(“the Court has concluded that the § 2254 Rules were intended to apply to § 2241 cases...”). Because Rule 4 applies to both Section 2254 Petitions and to Section 2241 Petitions, it does not matter for Rule 4 purposes how the Petition is characterized.
Rule 4 provides in relevant part that:
If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.
In interpreting Rule 4, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 observe that:
28 U.S.C. § 2243 requires that the writ shall be awarded, or an order to show cause issued, “unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Such consideration may properly encompass any exhibits attached to the petition, including, but not limited to, transcripts, sentencing records, and copies of state court opinions. The judge may order any of these items for his consideration if they are not yet included with the petition.
The purpose of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is to allow a person in custody to challenge either the fact or duration of confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,484 (1973); Learner v. Fauver, 288 F.3d 532, 540 (3d Cir. 2002). Federal habeas relief is unavailable unless the petitioner attacks the fact or duration of his imprisonment. See Learner, 288 F.3d at 542; see also Credico v. BOP FDC Warden of Phila., 592 Fed.Appx. 55,57-58 (3d Cir. 2014). In contrast, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a federal law that allows lawsuits for violations of constitutional rights and establishes a cause of action for any person who has been deprived of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States by a person acting under color of state law.
Here, in Ground Two, Petitioner is challenging the conditions of his confinement relative to COVID-19 medical care at AC J - not the legality of his detention directly.
In Hope v. Warden York County Prison, the Third Circuit found that federal immigration detainees' claims for release based on alleged conditions of confinement were cognizable in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hope, 972 F.3d 310, 323-25 (3d. Cir. 2020).
But the Third Circuit was clear in Hope that “ [i]n recognizing the viability of this § 2241 claim [it was] not creating a garden variety cause of action.” Id. at 324. Habeas relief under Section 2241 has not been extended by Hope beyond its limited circumstances. See, e.g., Houck v. Moser, No. 20-cv-255, 2021 WL 1840827, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 7, 2021) (“Even in the COVID-19 era, a writ of habeas corpus is not a generally available remedy outside the immigrant detainee context contemplated in Hope[.]”). See also Arrington v. Com., No. 21-cv-1282, 2022 WL 317147, at *3 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 314675 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 2, 2022) (“If Petitioner wants to pursue claims regarding the alleged mold at the Beaver County Jail, the mental health care he receives there, or whether the jail follows applicable local, state or federal guidelines or its grievance procedures, he may only do so in separate civil rights case filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).
In this case, Petitioner was, at the time of filing, a state detainee, and his conditions of confinement claim at Ground Two is beyond the scope of federal habeas relief allowed by Section 2241 for state detainees. Accordingly, while Ground Two does not appear necessarily to have been mooted by Petitioner's guilty plea, it should be dismissed because it is not cognizable in a federal habeas action. If Petitioner wishes to attack in federal court the conditions of confinement of his detention by state authorities, he must file a separate lawsuit asserting that claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
For these reasons, Ground Two should be dismissed under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Dismissal should be without prejudice to Petitioner raising this claim in a separate Section 1983 lawsuit. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, the same 6 should be denied because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Respondents' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 31, be granted. Grounds One, Three, and Four of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 14, should be dismissed as moot. Ground Two should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A certificate of appealability should be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Objections are to be submitted to the Clerk of Court, United States District Court, 700 Grant Street, Room 3110, Pittsburgh, PA 15219. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7(3dCir. 2011).
Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen (14) days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.