Opinion
Civil Action No. 20-3167 (UNA)
11-06-2020
JESSE BOYD, Petitioner, v. LENNARD JOHNSON, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Criminal charges against petitioner Jesse Boyd are pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See Pet. ¶ 6. Petitioner currently is detained at the D.C. Jail pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-1322. See id. ¶¶ 6, 13. He explains that his last court appearance was on February 14, 2020, for a preliminary hearing, see id. ¶ 6, and each subsequent hearing date has been continued, see id. ¶ 13, due to the coronavirus pandemic. According to petitioner, not only is he detained for a "term . . . beyond the statutory protections of the expedited calendar dictated by [D.C. Code §] 23-1322(h)(1)," but also is at risk for exposure to the coronavirus at the D.C. Jail. Id. ¶ 8. The presiding judge denied his emergency motions for release from custody on April 20, 2020, July 17, 2020, and September 29, 2020, see id. ¶¶ 7-9, and now before the Court is petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner demands immediate release from the D.C. Jail and placement on home confinement. See Pet. ¶ 15.
"[A] federal court may dismiss an action when there is a direct conflict between the exercise of federal and state jurisdiction and considerations of comity and federalism dictate that the federal court should defer to the state proceedings." Hoai v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co., Inc., 866 F.2d 1515, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971)). This is such an action. See Miranda v. Gonzales, 173 F. App'x 840 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) ("It is well-settled . . . that a court will not act to restrain a criminal prosecution if the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." ) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 889 (2006); see Reed v. Wainwright, No. 10-CV-0807, 2010 WL 1980170, at *1 (D.D.C. May 17, 2010) ("This Court not only lacks the authority to overturn a decision of a Superior Court judge, but also refrains from interfering with ongoing Superior Court proceedings."); Smith v. Holder, No. 14-131, 2014 WL 414292, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30, 2014), aff'd, 561 F. App'x 12 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2014) (per curiam) (noting appellant's failure to "show[] that the district court erred in dismissing his challenge to pending District of Columbia criminal proceedings under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris").
Petitioner may raise - and presumably already has raised - any constitutional claim he believes he has regarding his ongoing detention. Because petitioner remains in custody by order of the Superior Court, this Court declines to act. See Lewis v. Senior Judges, 75 F. Supp. 3d 201, 203 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court will grant petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the habeas petition without prejudice, and dismiss this civil action without prejudice. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: November 6, 2020
/s/
KETANJI BROWN JACKSON
United States District Judge