Opinion
Civil Action 3: 22-cv-00069
06-01-2022
RODERICK ANDREW KING, Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF CAMBRIA COUNTY PRISON, Respondent.
Kim R. Gibson Chief United States District Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Cynthia Reed Eddy Chief United States Magistrate Judge
I.RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons that follow, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Petitioner, Roderick Andrew King, be dismissed and, to the extent one is needed, that a certificate of appealability be denied as to each claim.
II. REPORT
Pro se petitioner Roderick Andrew King is currently awaiting trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on charges of sex trafficking of a child and attempted sex trafficking of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1591(a)(1), 1591(b)(2), and 1594(a), and production of material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). See United States v. King, Criminal No. 2: 21-cr-00184 (W.D. Pa.) (Wiegand, J) (ECF No. 1). The criminal case against Petitioner is active; Petitioner is proceeding pro se and standby counsel has been appointed for him. (ECF No. 99). Petitioner has filed numerous motions in his criminal case, including a motion to dismiss the criminal complaint (ECF No. 108), motion to dismiss the indictment (ECF No. 112), and motion to suppress the alleged victim out-of-court identification (ECF No. 106), all of which were denied on May 20, 2022. (ECF No. 118). He is being detained pending trial in Cambria County Prison. His criminal case is scheduled for trial for July 5, 2022. (ECF Nos. 100-101). The government has filed a Motion for Competency Hearing and Evaluation (ECF No. 119) and a status conference to status regarding that motion is scheduled for June 2, 2022. (ECF Nos. 123 and 124).
As noted by the Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the motion, Petitioner was charged by indictment, not criminal complaint. The docket number referenced in both this habeas petition and in the motion to dismiss filed in his criminal case (2:21-mj-134) pertains to a search warrant for a Snapchat account that the government claims was Petitioner's. See United States v. King, 2:21-cv-0184, Memorandum Opinion, 5/20/2022 (ECF No. 118).
On May 9, 2022, Petitioner submitted, without the filing fee or a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 24, 2022, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and his Petition was formally filed that day. (ECF No. 5). He is “challenging the validity of the said grand jury indictment, arrest warrant, etc.” Pet. at ¶ 6.
The petition has not been served yet, but pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, this Court may dismiss the petition if it plainly appears on its face that the petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief. The undersigned concludes that it plainly appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Courts have used Rule 4 of the habeas corpus rules to summarily dismiss facially insufficient habeas petitions brought under § 2241.
The law in this Circuit is clear that federal defendants who seek pretrial release should do so through the means authorized by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3141-3150, not through a separate §2241 action. Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 247 (3d Cir. 2018). The presumptive means to challenge a federal conviction or sentence is the filing of a motion to vacate sentence under §2255 in the district which imposed the sentence in question. See Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d 117, 120-21 (3d Cir. 2002); 28 U.S.C. §2255(a). Because Petitioner has not yet been sentenced, however, relief under §2255 is not yet available, and he could only acquire habeas relief prior to the issuance of his sentence and any appeal by pursuing his claims as part of a habeas petition instead filed pursuant to §2241. Although §2241 has the capability of providing a jurisdictional basis for a challenge to confinement in violation of the Constitution prior to trial or a sentence, it does not follow that the habeas statute may be used as an end-run around criminal motion practice or appeal. See Reese, 904 F.3d at 246. As the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has explained,
[E]ven in cases where the habeas court has the authority to grant relief, it must consider “whether this be a case in which that power ought to be exercised.” [Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008).]
Courts have consistently refused to exercise their habeas authority in cases where federal prisoners have sought relief before standing trial. Instead, courts have long stressed that defendants should pursue the remedies available within the criminal action. See, e.g., Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedures should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.”); Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547, 551 (1905) (vacating order granting habeas relief to federal pretrial detainees because there was “nothing in this record to disclose that there were any special circumstances which justified a departure from the regular course of judicial procedure” of pretrial motions and, if necessary, appeal); see also Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 2017) (adopting “the general rule that §2241 is not a proper avenue for relief for federal prisoners awaiting federal trial”).
Funneling requests for pretrial relief through the criminal action encourages an orderly, efficient resolution of the issues, maintains respect for the appellate process and prevents duplication of judicial work and judge-shopping See United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178, 184 n. 10 (1979) (explaining that “the writ of habeas corpus should not do service for an appeal,” and that “[t]his rule must be strictly observed if orderly appellate procedure is to be maintained”); see also Medina, 875 F.3d at 1029-29 (identifying similar interests.)
We relied on this rationale in Government of Virgin Islands v. Bolones, 427 F.2d 1135 (3d Cir. 1970) (per curiam), to affirm the District Court's denial of pretrial habeas petitions filed by federal defendants. We rejected the defendants' challenges to their arrest and interrogation on the ground that a pretrial motion in the criminal case, “rather than their petition for writs of habeas corpus, provides the appropriate avenue of relief before trial.” Id. at 1136. We similarly held that the defendants' claim that they had been denied a speedy trial should be resolved “on an appropriate pretrial motion.” Id. Accordingly, insofar as Reese sought to challenge the charges against him or the conduct of law-enforcement officers during arrest or interrogation, he was required to do so through pretrial motions in his criminal case, not via a pretrial §2241 petition. See id.
Section 2241 is likewise not the proper vehicle for Reese to challenge his detention pending trial. The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. §§3141 - 3150, provides a comprehensive scheme governing pretrial-release decisions. See generally, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 742-43 (1987)....Reese, 904 F.3d at 246-47.
Thus, it is clear that under the controlling law of this Circuit, Petitioner has used the wrong vehicle to challenge the validity and nature of his arrest and pretrial detention. He should seek pretrial relief through the filing of pretrial motions in his criminal case. Reese, 904 F.3d at 245. As such, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent one would be needed, a Certificate of Appealability should be denied as to each claim because jurists of reason would not find the foregoing debatable.
Petitioner is permitted to file Objections to this Report and Recommendation to the assigned United States District Judge. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d) and 72(b)(2), and LCvR 72.D.2, Petitioner may file written objections to this Report and Recommendation by June 21, 2022. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to file Objections within this timeframe “will waive the right to appeal.” Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2011). See also EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (describing standard of appellate review when no timely and specific objections are filed as limited to review for plain error).
cc: RODERICK ANDREW KING
21-01129
CAMBRIA COUNTY PRISON
425 Manor Drive
Ebensburg, PA 15931 (via U.S. First Class Mail)