Summary
finding petitioner's nolo contendere pleas mooted his pretrial habeas petition
Summary of this case from Rhoads v. The Superintendent of the Berks Cnty. Jail Sys.Opinion
Civil Action 19-1165
08-02-2023
DAELON HILL-JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. ORLANDO HARPER, Respondent.
MARILYN J. HORAN DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Re: ECF No. 21
MAUREEN P. KELLY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that this Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Petition”), ECF No. 21, be dismissed as moot. To the extent one is necessary, a certificate of appealability should be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
Daelon Hill-Johnson (“Petitioner”) was, at the time of filing, a state pre-trial detainee, housed in the Allegheny County Jail (“ACJ”). Id. at 1. The Petition was dismissed with prejudice on December 19, 2019, due to Petitioner's failure to pay the filing fee. ECF Nos. 6 and 7. Petitioner appealed and, and June 12,2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. ECF No. 16 at 2. Petitioner paid the filing fee on July 24, 2023, and the Petition was formally filed on the same date. ECF Nos. 20 and 21.
In the Petition, Petitioner attacks his pretrial detention in three different state criminal cases in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. ECF No. 21 at 1 and 2. These cases are:
• Com, v. Hill-Johnson, No. CP-02-CR-5565-2016 (docket available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0005565-2016&dnh=b91vi7fSsMGlTpQ0NYUH8Q%3D%3D (last visited Aug. 2, 2023)).
• Com. V. Hill-Johnson, No. CP-02-CR-5569-2016 (docket available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0005569-2016&dnh=z2wv8uygQ8psRAmmM%2Ft2dA%3D%3D (last visited Aug. 2, 2023)).
• Com, v. Hill-Johnson, No. CP-02-CR-3609-2016 (docket available at https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/Report/CpDocketSheet?docketNumber=CP-02-CR-0003609-2016&dnh=UrgfXlY3vJk6bblVfbnI4A%3D%3D (last visited Aug. 2, 2023)).
A review of the dockets in these cases indicates that Petitioner pleaded nolo contendere in each of them on July 6, 2022, and was sentenced on the same date.
B. Discussion
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 pleas of nolo contendere moot his 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.”).
Petitioner's plea and sentence render moot his Section 2241 federal habeas petition challenging pretrial detention. Accordingly, this Court should dismiss the habeas petition under Section 2241 as moot. To the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, the same 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).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that this case be dismissed as moot, and that a certificate of appealability 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 (3d Cir. 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.