Opinion
Case No. CIV-20-317-D
04-20-2020
RANDY LEW WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. LOGAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER, et al., Respondent(s).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a federal pretrial detainee, currently in custody at the Logan County Detention Center in Guthrie, Oklahoma, and appearing pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C §§ 3141 and 3142 seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Chief United States District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for initial proceedings consistent 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C). For the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the petition be DISMISSED.
Petitioner has not utilized a proper habeas form, but because he has not yet been convicted of the crime for which he has been charged, his "petition" is liberally construed as one arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Walck v. Edmondson, 427 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 applies to challenges involving pretrial detention).
I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT
The Court is required to review habeas petitions promptly and to "summarily dismiss [a] petition without ordering a responsive pleading," Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005), "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court." See Rules Governing § 2254, Rule 4, Cases in U.S. Dist. Ct.
II. BACKGROUND
Petitioner has been charged, but not indicted, in this Court on several counts involving the illegal shipping and smuggling of firearms. See ECF No. 1, Criminal Complaint, United States of America v. Williams, Case No, M-20-94-P (Mar. 3, 2020) (United States v. Williams). On March 12, 2020, Petitioner signed a waiver of speedy trial, and following a hearing, the Court ordered Mr. Williams detained. United States v. Williams, ECF Nos. 13 & 15. At the request of Petitioner's counsel, counsel for the Government filed a Motion requesting a delay in the filing of an indictment. That Motion was granted by Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell on March 12, 2020. See United States v. Williams, ECF Nos. 16 & 17.
The Court takes judicial notice of the record in Mr. Williams' criminal case.
In his habeas Petition, Mr. Williams requests the Court: (1) "release [him] to Pretrial release, ankle monitoring and Conditions ordered by the Court," and (2) order an "Emergency Detention Hearing." (ECF No. 1:4). According to Petitioner, the following "good cause" warrants his release.
1. Petitioner is a long-time resident of Logan County, Oklahoma;
2. Petitioner is 56 years old, with no prior convictions;
3. Petitioner believes he is a low risk for recidivism;
4. Petitioner was gainfully employed at the time of his arrest;(ECF No. 1:1-2). Petitioner further argues that the flight risk problem "has to a certain extent been mitigated" by the existing Covid-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 1:3). Petitioner explains he has surrendered his passport and has "100% employability." (ECF No. 1:3). He also proposes residence with his sister and suggests he will pay for ankle monitoring. (ECF No. 1:3). Petitioner again cites his high blood pressure puts him at "high risk" due to the Covid-19 pandemic. (ECF No. 1:3). Petitioner argues it is a "better course of justice in the people of the United States v. Randy Williams with respect to the aforementioned, to release the Petitioner on Pretrial release forthwith." (ECF No. 1:4).
5. Petitioner has no substance abuse or anti-social behaviors;
6. Petitioner cooperated in the government's investigation;
7. Petitioner has pre-existing health issues that puts him at high risk - high blood pressure;
8. Findings by the Magistrate Judge at the detention hearing that Petitioner was not a danger to the community and he was a flight risk.
III. ANALYSIS
On its face, the habeas petition may appear proper. The Tenth Circuit, however, has adopted "the general rule that § 2241 is not a proper avenue of relief for federal prisoners awaiting federal trial." Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal of petition for habeas relief).
As the Tenth Circuit explained:
To be eligible for habeas corpus relief under § 2241, a federal pretrial detainee generally must exhaust other available remedies. See Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018 (5th Cir. 1988); United States v. Pepito, 861 F.2d 1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1987); Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 629, 623 (D. Neb. 1994). The reasons for this requirement are rooted not in comity (as is the case with state prisoners), but in concerns for judicial economy. Allowing federal prisoners to bring claims in habeas proceedings that they have not yet, but still could, bring in the trial court, would result in needless duplication of judicial work and would encourage 'judge shopping.'Id. at 1028-1029 (internal citation omitted).
Here, the claim Mr. Williams raises relates to his ongoing federal criminal case. As such, he is limited to proceeding by motion to the trial court, followed by a possible appeal after judgment, before resorting to habeas relief. Medina, 875 F.3d at 1028. Further, after direct appeal, Mr. Williams' habeas remedy would be that provided in 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Section 2241 is not an alternative remedy to that provided in § 2255.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Petition must be dismissed because Mr. Williams cannot proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons set forth herein, it is recommended that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
V. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The parties are advised of their right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by May 7, 2020, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The parties are further advised that failure to make timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
VI. STATUS OF REFERRAL
This Report and Recommendation terminates the referral by the District Judge in this matter.
ENTERED on April 20, 2020.
/s/_________
SHON T. ERWIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE