Opinion
No. 3:20-cv-2779-E-BN
09-08-2020
CHRISTOPHER S. POLLARD, #202000130, Petitioner, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent.
FINDINGS , CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Christopher S. Pollard, detained pretrial at the Johnson County jail, facing a state felony prosecution for burglary of a building, see State v. Pollard, DC-F202000360 (18th Dist. Ct., Johnson Cnty., Tex.), filed a Motion to Request Documents [Dkt. No. 3], requesting that this Court order the "Johnson County Court Clerk and County Clerk to produce Title, Deed, lease, lease agreement and [lien] Documentation for property ownership." Id. at 1 (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 34).
This resulting action has been referred to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from United States District Judge Ada Brown.
To the extent that Pollard seeks habeas relief, as he states that he "would like to file a suit ... for wrongful incarceration," Dkt. No. 3 at 2, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 remains "'available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment.' For example, prisoners 'in state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction' are able to take advantage of § 2241 relief," In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 782 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)); cf. Poree v. Collins, 866 F.3d 235, 243 (5th Cir. 2017) ("[C]hallenges to the fact or duration of confinement are properly brought under habeas." (citing Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) ("[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus."); citation omitted)).
And "[a] state pretrial detainee is entitled to raise constitutional claims in a federal habeas proceeding under § 2241 if two requirements are satisfied." Ray v. Quarterman, No. 3:06-cv-850-L, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 24, 2006), rec. adopted, 2006 WL 2844129 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2006).
Pollard's continued incarceration in Johnson County satisfies the initial "in custody" requirement. See id.
But he must also exhaust his "available state remedies." Id. at *1 & n.1 (explaining that, "[d]espite the absence of an exhaustion requirement in the statutory language of § 2241, the courts have developed an exhaustion doctrine, holding that federal courts should abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction until the issues are resolved in state court"; citing Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Ct of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973)); see also Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1973) ("With respect to collateral attack on convictions in state court, the requirement was codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), but the requirement applies to all habeas corpus actions.").
State remedies are ordinarily not considered exhausted so long as the petitioner may effectively present his claims to the state courts by a currently available and adequate procedure. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. This entails submitting the factual and legal basis of any claim to the highest available state court for review. Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th Cir. 1982). A Texas pretrial detainee must present his claim to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 (5th Cir. 1993); Richardson v. Procunier, 762 F.2d 429, 432 (5th Cir. 1985).Ray, 2006 WL 2842122, at *1; see also Braden, 410 U.S. at 493 ("Derailment of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court" is not allowed.). Because Pollard fails to make this showing, this Court should not derail the state criminal proceedings.
A petitioner may be excused from the exhaustion requirement only if he can show "exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency." Deters, 985 F.2d at 795. Absent exceptional circumstances, a pre-trial detainee may not adjudicate the merits of his claims before a judgment of conviction has been entered by a state court. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
Further, to the extent that his filing may be construed as requesting that this Court compel state officials to provide Pollard discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, the federal mandamus statute provides "district courts [with] original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or agency of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff." 28 U.S.C. § 1361. But that statute does not give federal courts the authority to compel state officers or agencies to act. See, e.g., Moore v. 204th Dist. Ct., No. 3:08-cv-2281-D, 2009 WL 3150983, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2009) ("Federal courts lack the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties." (citing Moye v. Clerk, Dekalb Cnty. Sup. Ct., 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973))).
Recommendation
The Court should dismiss the pending construed habeas action without prejudice to Petitioner Christopher S. Pollard's right to pursue available state court remedies and deny any request for mandamus relief directed to state officials.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: September 8, 2020
/s/_________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE