From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lohnes v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION
Apr 22, 2020
CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-117-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2020)

Opinion

CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-117-TLS-JPK

04-22-2020

JAMES ANDREW LOHNES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents.


OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court sua sponte on an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §] 2241 [ECF No. 1] filed by James Andrew Lohnes, a prisoner without a lawyer. Because his petition suggested that he was serving a state court conviction, Lohnes was advised, in an Order denying emergency relief [ECF No. 4], that the only remedy available to him in federal court was a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dudgeon v. Frank, 2006 WL 3754796 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 7, 2006). Lohnes was provided with a copy of this court's form for petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and granted an opportunity to file an amended petition. He has now filed an Amended Petition [ECF No. 6]. According to the Amended Petition, Lohnes is a pre-trial detainee awaiting sentencing.

"The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is § 2241." Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015). However, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), generally "requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state proceedings to enforce a state's criminal laws . . . ." Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571, 573 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 37). Two recognized exceptions are speedy trial and double jeopardy claims. Id. Lohnes is not raising either a speedy trial claim or a double jeopardy claim. Rather, he alleges that he should be released because he suffers from health conditions that place him at high risk of complications if he contracts Covid-19. Therefore, the court must abstain pursuant to Younger. Sweeney, 612 F.3d at 573 (noting that for claims other than speedy trial or double jeopardy, "[i]t makes no difference [whether] the petitioner has exhausted the state remedies that he could invoke" because Younger requires abstention.).

For these reasons, Lohnes' Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 6] is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.

SO ORDERED on April 22, 2020.

s/ Theresa L. Springmann

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Lohnes v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION
Apr 22, 2020
CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-117-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2020)
Case details for

Lohnes v. United States

Case Details

Full title:JAMES ANDREW LOHNES, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

Date published: Apr 22, 2020

Citations

CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-117-TLS-JPK (N.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2020)

Citing Cases

Lohnes v. Warden

The court finds that further differentiation of these petitions is unnecessary because the reasoning of this…