Opinion
CASE NO. 1:14-cv-195-MP-GRJ
03-30-2015
TERRY GEORGE TRUSSELL, Petitioner, v. JERRY SIEGMEISTER, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the Court on Petitioner's amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 6.) For the reasons discussed below, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition be DISMISSED under the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is currently awaiting trial on state criminal charges. Petitioner's state charges appear to be for impersonating a public officer, because he acted as the "people's grand jury foreman" in presenting a true bill of presentment "under common law" to the Dixie County Sheriff. Petitioner alleges that when he attended court for his arraignment, the presiding judge determined that he failed to appear, despite his presence in court. (Doc. 1.)
DISCUSSION
A state pretrial detainee may challenge his confinement by petitioning for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Hiteshaw v. Butterfield, 262 Fed. Appx. 162, 164 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (noting that petitioner, "as a pre-trial detainee, [wa]s not in custody pursuant to any state court judgment, and his habeas petition should have been treated as a § 2241 petition."); Hughes v. Att'y Gen. of Fla., 377 F.3d 1258, 1261-62 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a pretrial petition for habeas corpus is properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see also Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1060 (11th Cir. 2003) (noting that a state court pre-trial detainee would file an application for a writ of habeas corpus governed by § 2241.)
Although it appears that Petitioner was in custody when he filed the instant petition, this Court must abstain from passing on Petitioner's claims pursuant to the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). "Under Younger v. Harris and its progeny, federal district courts must refrain from enjoining pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances." Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis Trucking Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir. 1997). Younger was concerned with the equitable restraint by federal courts of state court criminal proceedings that had yet to run their course and was "founded on the premise that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights." Hughes v. Att'y Gen. Of Florida, 377 F.3d 1258, 1264 n.7 (11th Cir. 2004). The exceptions to Younger are very narrow and apply only if: there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad faith, irreparable injury would occur, or there is no adequate alternative state forum where the petitioner's constitutional issues can be raised. Id. at 1263 n.6.
None of the Younger exceptions apply in this case. Petitioner does not make a "substantial allegation" showing that his state prosecution is motivated by bad faith, nor has he alleged facts suggesting an "irreparable injury." See Younger, 401 U.S. at 48 (noting that bad faith prosecutions are brought without the expectation of securing a conviction, or with an intention to harass); id. at 53-55 (citing Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387 (1941)) (finding irreparable injury if the statute under which a defendant is being prosecuted is "flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it," or if unusual circumstances call for equitable relief). Petitioner has adequate opportunity to advance his claims as to the legality of his pre-trial detention in the state court criminal proceedings, and, if convicted, challenge any conviction and sentence through appellate and post-conviction proceedings in the state court. Any interference by this Court in those state court criminal proceedings would defy the "strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings" expressed by the Supreme Court in Younger. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982).
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's First Amended Petition for Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Doc. 6, should be DISMISSED.
IN CHAMBERS in Gainesville, Florida, this 30th day of March, 2015.
/s/_________
GARY R. JONES
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) , a party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and recommendations.