Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-795
11-20-2020
ANDREW C. HOHN, Petitioner, v. WESTMORELAND COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the Court is the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoner Andrew C. Hohn pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 5). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the Court dismiss the petition because it is moot and deny a certificate of appealability.
II. REPORT
A. Relevant Background
When Petitioner commenced this habeas action he was awaiting his trial before the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County (the "trial court") in criminal case CP-65-CR-1296-2019. He claimed that he was being deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel. The Court directed that the petition be served upon Respondents, who filed their answer on October 16, 2020. (ECF No. 10). Petitioner did not file a reply. See LCvR 2241(D)(2) ("the petitioner may file a Reply (also known as 'a Traverse') within 30 days of the date the respondent files its Response.").
An up-to-date version of the docket sheet for Petitioner's state criminal case is available online at <https://ujsportal.pacourts.us> and the Court takes judicial notice of it. It establishes that on October 20, 2020 Petitioner entered a negotiated guilty plea in which he pleaded guilty to the crimes of drug delivery resulting in death, criminal conspiracy, and possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance. The trial court sentenced him on that same date to a term of imprisonment.
B. Discussion
The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is to challenge the legal authority under which a prisoner is held in custody. See, e.g., Keitel v. Mazurkiewicz, 729 F.3d 278, 280 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing, inter alia, Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). "For state prisoners, federal habeas corpus is substantially a post-conviction remedy[.]" Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 448 (3d Cir. 1975) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54 (1967)). After a state prisoner has been convicted, sentenced, and has exhausted his remedies in the state courts, he may seek federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which is the federal habeas statute applicable to state prisoners "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added); see, e.g., Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484-86 (3d Cir. 2001).
While § 2254 applies to post-trial situations, the more general habeas corpus statute of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides federal courts with jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus before a state judgment is rendered, but only in very limited circumstances. "[T]hat jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent in the ordinary circumstance 'pre-trial habeas interference by federal courts in the normal functioning of state criminal processes.'" Duran v. Thomas, 393 F. App'x 3 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at 445-46). Additionally, regardless of whether a state prisoner is proceeding under § 2241 or § 2254, and except in very rare circumstances, a petitioner must first exhaust his available state-court remedies before he may proceed with his claims in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); see, e.g., Breakiron v. Wetzel, No. 2:14-cv-570, 2015 WL 451167, *7 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 3, 2015) (citing Schandelmeier v. Cunningham, 819 F.2d 52, 53 (3d Cir. 1986) and Moore, 515 F.2d at 441).
In their answer, Respondents argued that the Court should dismiss Petitioner's claims due to lack of exhaustion. However, the recent developments in Petitioner's state criminal case require the Court to first address whether the habeas petition is now moot as that affects this Court's jurisdiction. See, e.g., Keitel, 729 F.3d at 280.
In this case, Petitioner is no longer a pretrial detainee. He is now in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment. Accordingly, his request for pretrial federal habeas relief under § 2241 is moot and the Court should dismiss the petition for that reason. See, e.g., Williams v. New Jersey, No. 18-cv-14964, 2020 WL 3259223, at *2 (D.N.J. June 16, 2020) (state prisoner's guilty plea moots his § 2241 habeas petition challenging pretrial detention); Jones v. Mullen, No. 17-cv-1366, 2017 WL 7691900, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 8, 2017) ("where a habeas petitioner is challenging pretrial custody, after the petitioner is convicted, the habeas petition challenging the pretrial custody is rendered moot by the conviction."), report and recommendation adopted by, 2018 WL 889027 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2018). In the event that Petitioner claims that his current detention is violative of his federal constitutional rights, he may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he exhausts his available state-court remedies.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Court dismiss Petitioner's § 2241 petition because it is moot. Jurists of reason would not find that decision to be debatable and, therefore, the Court should deny a certificate of appealability. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 codified standards governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition filed by a state prisoner under either § 2254 or § 2241. It provides that "[u]nless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from...the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). It also provides that "[a] certificate of appealability may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. § 2253(c)(2). --------
Pursuant to the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule 72.D.2 of the Local Civil Rules, the parties are allowed fourteen (14) days from today's date to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Failure to do so will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Dated: November 20, 2020
/s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge