Opinion
Case No. CV412-137
05-22-2012
WILLIE LAWRENCE, Petitioner, v. AL ST. LAWRENCE, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Willie Lawrence, a pre-trial detainee held at the Chatham County Detention Center while awaiting prosecution for a burglary, see attached state court docket, petitions this Court for habeas relief, which the Court determines to fall under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. He also moves for leave to file it in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Indicted in July 2011, see attach, at 2, and scheduled for a June 11, 2012 jury trial in state court, id. at 1, Lawrence insists that there are no pending charges against him and that the state is violating his constitutional rights. Doc. 1 at 1-2. He thus petitions for dismissal and release. Id. at 2.
The Court GRANTS his IFP motion (doc. 2) but concludes his petition must be dismissed. Lawrence's factual assertions are contradicted by the attached state court docket sheet -- there are pending charges against him and the state is on the verge of trying him. And pretrial § 2241 petitions like his must be exhausted. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 2005) (all habeas corpus actions "require a petitioner to fully exhaust state remedies"); Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 812 (11th Cir. 2004) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) ("Among the most fundamental common law requirements of § 2241 is that petitioners must first exhaust their state court remedies."). Georgia law
allows pretrial detainees to raise each of these types of claims either during state criminal proceedings or collaterally in a state habeas corpus action. See Perera v. Miller, 283 Ga. 583, 662 S.E.2d 544, 544 (Ga. 2008) (noting that criminal defendants can bring speedy trial claim and ineffective assistance of counsel claims during the course of criminal proceedings); Jackson v. State, 279 Ga. 449, 614 S.E.2d 781, 783-84 (Ga. 2005) (ruling on speedy trial claim and due process claim based on preindictment delay; claims initially brought in motion for a new trial and reasserted on direct appeal); Rainwater v. Langley, 277 Ga. 127, 587 S.E.2d 18, 19-20 (Ga. 2003) (challenging pretrial detention in state habeas petition); Banks v. Waldrop, 272 Ga. 475, 531 S.E.2d 708, 708 (Ga. 2000) (holding that challenge to pretrial detention based on contention of improper denial of bail is properly brought in state habeas petition); McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 214 S.E.2d 503, 506 (Ga. 1975) (holding that claim based on denial of a timely first appearance may be cognizable in habeas corpus action).Harvey v. Corbin, 2011 WL 4369828 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2011). As in Harvey, Lawrence "has not alleged, and there is nothing in the record to suggest, that he filed a state habeas petition challenging his pre-trial detention." Id. Therefore, his petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so that he may exhaust available state remedies.
The Court notes that Lawrence also seeks to jam-up this prosecution with a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case, Lawrence v. Lawrence, CV412-117, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 30, 2012), for which the Court is awaiting his IFP paperwork due by June 3, 2012.
______________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA