Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01011/USCOURTS-arwd-1_06-cv-01011-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EL DORADO DIVISION

JAMES F. BROWN PETITIONER

v. Civil No.06-1011

KEN JONES, Sheriff RESPONDENT

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, James F. Brown, a prisoner in the Union County Jail, has filed herein a

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. (Doc. #1) The respondent is

the Sheriff of Union County, Arkansas and Petitioner’s custodian. Jones filed a response herein

on March 23, 2006. (Doc. #4)

Petitioner asserts that he is being wrongfully held in the Union County Jail, specifically

asserting that: he was falsely arrested in that no warrant for arrest was outstanding at the time

of his arrest; he was arrested for a felony when the charge should be a misdemeanor; he was

subjected to an illegal search, criminal trespass and entrapment, at the time of his arrest; his

arrest constitutes kidnaping in violation of his “civil rights”; and, his bond is excessive. (Doc.

#1)

According to the petition, at the time of its filing, Petitioner was a pretrial detainee in the

Union County Jail. In fact, Petitioner alleges that no charges have been formally filed against

him as of the date of the filing of the petition.

28 U.S.C. §2241 provides relief for persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution

or laws or treaties of the United States.” Under this statute, relief is not restricted to persons in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court as is the case under 28 U.S.C. §2254. 28

U.S.C. §2241(c)(3) A petition challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings may be properly

Case 1:06-cv-01011-HFB Document 10 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

brought under 28 U.S.C. §2241. See Davis v. Muellar, 643 F.2d 521, 522 (8th Cir. 1981);

Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998)(construing petition seeking release from

pending state criminal proceeding as brought under §2241). Since Petitioner challenges his

pretrial incarceration, his petition is more properly considered as a petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§2241.

Before pursuing relief under §2241, a state pretrial detainee must fully exhaust his state

remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973); Moore v. De

Young, 595 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3rd Cir. 1975); Dickerson v. State, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir.),

cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956 (1987). In order to exhaust his claims, Petitioner must “fairly

present” his claims to the state court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1981). 

[A]lthough §2241 establishesjurisdiction in the federal courts to consider pretrial

habeas corpus petitions, the courts should abstain from the exercise of that

jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on

the merits in the state courts or by other state procedures available to the

petitioner. Abstention from the exercise of the habeas corpus jurisdiction is

justified by the doctrine of comity, a recognition of the concurrent jurisdiction

crated by our federal system of government in the separate state and national

sovereignties. Intrusion into state proceedings already underway is warranted

only in extraordinary circumstances.

Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981). 

Here, Petitioner’s criminal prosecution has just begun and he has not asserted his pending

claims and defenses in the ongoing state criminal prosecution. 

Since Petitioner has failed to exhaust his available state remedies, this court should

refrain from interfering with the ongoing state prosecution.

Conclusion:

Accordingly, it is recommended that Petitioner’s pending petition be dismissed without

prejudice to afford Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust all available state remedies.

Case 1:06-cv-01011-HFB Document 10 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The parties have ten (10) days from receipt of our report and recommendation in

which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely

objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are

reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.

DATED this 3rd day of October 2006.

/s/ Bobby E. Shepherd 

HON. BOBBY E. SHEPHERD 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01011-HFB Document 10 Filed 10/03/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>