Opinion
Case No. 4:06CV646 JCH.
August 29, 2008
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Michael West's ("Petitioner") pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter is fully briefed and ready for disposition.
BACKGROUND
On or around April 17, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody with the Court. (Doc. No. 2). Plaintiff's petition is related to criminal charges pending against him in State v. West, Cause No. 0511-CR05483, which is currently pending in St. Charles County, Missouri state court, and the treatment he has received as a pre-trial detainee.
In his § 2254 Petition, Petitioner alleges the following grounds for relief:
1. False or perjured evidence was knowingly used in the probable cause statement against Petitioner (Petition, "Count I," ¶¶ 13-20, 48-49);
2. False or perjured evidence was knowingly used in the "Information and sworn statement" against Petitioner (Petition, "Counts II — VI," ¶¶ 21-43, 48-49);
3. False or perjured evidence was knowingly used in the "State's discovery and request for disclosure" (Petition, "Count VII," ¶¶ 44-49);
4. Respondent engaged in "unfair bail bond practices" because St. Charles County improperly refused to apply a partial payment by "an unrelated person" towards Petitioner's "bail bond" (Petition, ¶¶ 50-68);
5. Respondent engaged in cruel and unusual punishment because, in December 2005, Petitioner "was subjected to solitary confinement, without petitioner committing serious offense or rule violation" (Petition, ¶¶ 69-77);
6. Respondent engaged in cruel and unusual punishment because, from November 28, 2005 until April 14, 2006, it provided "insufficient meal portions" (Petition, ¶¶ 78-83);
7. Respondent denied "inmate/detainees [sic] a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to research their [sic] legal issues" (Petition, ¶¶ 84-102);
8. Respondent denied Petitioner "reasonable religious practices" because it refused to allow Petitioner to practice his "non-denominational religious services," including weekly communion and "clergy visits" (Petition, ¶¶ 103-121);
9. Respondent engaged in cruel and unusual punishment because it denied Petitioner "reasonable pre-trial confinement housing" (Petition, ¶¶ 122-131);
10. Petitioner was denied "timely access to the courts" in that "the court clerk's policy or practice prohibits pre-trial detainees from making telephone conferences with court personnel to timely schedule, call up, and set court hearings on the docket" (paragraphs 132-148);
11. Petitioner was denied "fair use and benefit of state supreme court rules" because:
a. Petitioner's December 26, 2005 habeas corpus complaint was returned "undeliverable" in purported violation of Mo.S.Ct.R. 91.05 (Petition, ¶¶ 149-154);
b. Petitioner did not receive any notice that his December 26, 2005 habeas corpus complaint was received and/or processed in purported violation of Mo.S.Ct.R. 20.02 (Petition, ¶¶ 155-161); and
12. Respondent committed fraud and conversion in that it demanded that Petitioner sign over a personal check to the jail to pay his inmate fees. (Petition, ¶¶ 162-170).
To date, Petitioner has not been convicted of any crime related to State v. Michael West, 0511-CR05483 (St. Charles County Circuit Court), and his case remains pending before the state court. See https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchDockets.do.
DISCUSSION
A. Petitioner's Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Fail Because He is a Pre-Trial Detainee.
Petitioner purports to file a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 related to certain criminal charges that are pending against him and the treatment he has received as a pre-trial detainee. See, e.g., Petition, ¶ 159 (stating that Petitioner has been subject to "lengthy pre-trial incarceration without good cause"); Petition, ¶¶ 70-73 (describing Petitioner as a "pre-trial" detainee). Petitioner's claim for habeas corpus relief fails, however, because relief under § 2254 is only available post-judgment. This difference was outlined in White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004):
[A] proper understanding of the interaction between 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2254 leads us to the conclusion that they apply in different situations. Section 2254 is properly understood as "in effect implementing the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction."Id. at 1006 (citing Walker v. O'Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original); see also Yellowbear v. Wyo. AG, 130 Fed. Appx. 276, 277 (10th Cir. 2005) (unpublished) ("Mr. Yellowbear is a prisoner in pre-conviction custody and is therefore unable to rely upon 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is a vehicle intended only for state court prisoners who have already been convicted to contest the legality of their convictions"). Because Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee, he cannot rely on § 2254 for relief.
Petitioner's request for habeas relief on this ground is therefore denied.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly,IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. No. 2) is DENIED, and his claim is DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because Petitioner cannot make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. See Cox v. Norris, 133 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 834 (1998).