Opinion
Civil No. 02-CV-72627-DT
February 13, 2003
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Patrick Jay Conely ("Petitioner"), presently residing in Brighton, Michigan, seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). In his pro se application, Petitioner appears to challenge his pending prosecution in the 53rd District Court in Livingston County, Michigan on one count of solid waste-disposal of refuse at a non-licensed facility, M.C.L.A. 324.11512(1); M.S.A. 13A.11512(1); one count of solid waste-establishing a disposal area without a permit, M.C.L.A. 324.11509(1); M.S.A. 13A.11509(1); and one count of solid waste-operating a disposal area without license, M.C.L.A. 324.11522; M.S.A. 13A.11522. For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Because Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus appears to have been brought prior to him being convicted of any crimes, the court will construe it as a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Blanck v. Waukesha County, 48 F. Supp.2d 859, 860 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
I. Discussion
Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief because he has not yet been brought to trial on the criminal charges that he challenges in his habeas petition. Petitioner filed this application for habeas relief on June 25, 2002. According to a trial notice which is attached to the petition, trial was scheduled in the 53rd District Court on these charges for the same day. In a companion case to this one, Petitioner brought an action to have this state criminal prosecution removed from the 53rd District Court to the federal courts. On June 28, 2002, this Court denied Petitioner's request to remove his criminal case to the federal court and remanded the matter back to the 53rd District Court. See People of the State of Michigan v. Patrick Jay Conely, U.S.D.C. 02-71299 (E.D. Mich. June 28, 2002). There is no indication that this case has proceeded to trial or if there has been any conviction.In the absence of "special circumstances", federal habeas corpus relief is not available to review the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973). A state criminal case is therefore ordinarily ripe for federal habeas review only after the defendant has been tried, convicted, sentenced, and has pursued his or her direct appeals. Allen v. Attorney General of the State of Maine, 80 F.3d 569, 572 (1st Cir. 1996). Although federal courts have jurisdiction to hear pretrial habeas corpus petitions, a federal court should normally abstain from exercising this jurisdiction to consider a pretrial habeas petition if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial in the state courts or by other state procedures available to petitioner. Atkins v. People of the State of Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 545-546 (6th Cir. 1981). Where a habeas petitioner's claims, if successful, would be dispositive of pending state criminal charges, the claims may be exhausted only by presenting the issues at the trial in state court, including claims that provide an affirmative defense to the criminal charges and claims that would "abort a state criminal proceeding, dismiss an indictment, or prevent a prosecution." Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 620, 622 (D. Neb. 1994). The practical effect of this exhaustion requirement is that review of dispositive claims in habeas is not available prior to a state trial. Id.
There are several exceptions to the rule that prejudgment habeas relief is unavailable to a state prisoner. One exception to this general rule is a claim that an impending state trial would violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the federal constitution. Satter v. Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259, 1261 (8th Cir. 1992); Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. at 622, fn. 2. Another exception to this rule is a pretrial habeas petition in which a state prisoner asserts his or her speedy trial rights for the sole purpose of seeking a writ of habeas corpus that would order the state to bring the prisoner to trial in a timely manner. See Atkins v. People of the State of Michigan, 644 F.2d at 547. Neither exception to the rule against prejudgment habeas relief is present in this case.
In the present case, Petitioner has not demonstrated that he is entitled to pretrial habeas relief on his claims. Petitioner can raise any affirmative defenses in the state trial court and can appeal if he is convicted. This Court declines to disrupt Petitioner's state criminal proceedings to prematurely address his claims. Accordingly, the Court denies the habeas petition without requiring respondent to answer, because it appears from the application that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. Blanck v. Waukesha County, 48 F. Supp.2d 859, 862 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (citing to 28 U.S.C. § 2243).
II. ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.