Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00258/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00258-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL ALBERT FOCIA, ) 

 ) 

 Petitioner, ) 

 ) 

 v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2:15-CV-258-WKW 

 ) [WO] 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Respondents. ) 

 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Petitioner, a federal pretrial detainee incarcerated in the Montgomery City Jail in 

Montgomery, Alabama, has filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The 

matter is now before the court for a review of the amended petition under Rule 4, Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts [“Rule 4”].1

 Upon review, the 

court concludes that the instant habeas corpus action is due to be summarily dismissed without 

prejudice under Rule 4. 

I. DISCUSSION 

 Petitioner brings this habeas petition challenging the validity and legality of his current 

detention claiming “the taking of the People into custody was without due process, . . . 

jurisdiction was fraudulently acquired, [and] . . . respondent has taken unlawful dominion of 

[Petitioner.]” Doc. No. 2 at 5. He claims he has been forced and required to involuntarily appear 

in court and has been denied bail without good cause. Id. at 33. Petitioner seeks his immediate 

release “so that he may return to the jurisdiction of his own court.” Id. at 5. 

                                                            

1 Under Rule 1(b), the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts are also 

applicable to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 cases. 

Case 2:15-cv-00258-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/17/15 Page 1 of 4
Petitioner has criminal charges pending against him in this court. United States v. Focia, 

Criminal No. 2:15-CR-17-AKK-WC-1. While § 2241 “ ‘applies to persons in custody regardless 

of whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of the present status of the case 

pending against [the petitioner,]’ Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 n. 1 (6th Cir. 1981), 

courts strongly prefer that federal pretrial detainees file an appeal. Thus, ‘in the absence of 

exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed 

and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.’ Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 

38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358 (1918).’ ” Jerdine v. U.S., 2012 WL 160044, 1 (N.D. Ohio 2012). 

The fact this court has jurisdiction over the instant petition does not mean Petitioner has 

invoked an appropriate remedy by which to challenge matters associated with his federal pretrial 

detention. A review of the court’s docket in Petitioner’s criminal proceedings reflect that he has 

filed numerous pro se motions and pleadings.2

 The claims in the instant action fail to reveal the 

existence of any “exceptional circumstances” requiring resort to the use of habeas corpus rather 

than seeking appropriate remedies available in his criminal proceedings. “[W]here a defendant is 

awaiting trial, the appropriate vehicle for claims of constitutional violations include pretrial 

motions and the expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3145 

(b), (c), but not habeas corpus.” Whitmer v. Levi, 276 Fed. Appx. 217, 219 (3rd Cir. 2008);

Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018–19 (5th Cir.1988) (finding that the petitioner’s 

challenges to the “basis of his pretrial detention ... demonstrate [] an ingenious device for 

securing redundant review of these contentions and holding that the remedies available under the 

Bail Reform Act to challenge pretrial detention orders are strongly preferred to a § 2241 

petition); Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 620, 624 (D.Neb.1994) (“[W]here habeas claims 

                                                            

2 Petitioner has been appointed stand-by counsel in his criminal case having signed and filed a waiver of 

counsel. 2:15-CR-17-AKK-WC at Doc. Nos. 9, 15. 

Case 2:15-cv-00258-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 4
raised by a pretrial detainee would be dispositive of the pending federal criminal charges, 

principles of federal court efficiency require that the petitioner exhaust those claims by raising 

them at trial and then on direct appeal.”). 

Because Petitioner may assert his claims in pretrial proceedings in his pending criminal 

case,3

 the court concludes that the instant § 2241 petition is due to be dismissed without 

prejudice so Petitioner may pursue appropriate remedies. See In Re Williams, 306 F. App’x 818, 

819 (4th Cir. 2009) (dismissing § 2241 petition raising claims of illegal arrest, unlawful 

detention, and violation of speedy trial rights where the petitioner could raise his claims in his 

pending criminal case). 

II. CONCLUSION 

 Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief be DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4, Rules 

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court, to afford Petitioner an 

opportunity to pursue appropriate remedies. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that on or before July 1, 2015, Petitioner may file an objection to the 

Recommendation. Any objection filed must specifically identify the findings in the Magistrate 

Judge’s Recommendation to which Petitioner objects. Frivolous, conclusive, or general 

objections will not be considered by the District Court. Petitioner is advised this 

Recommendation is not a final order and, therefore, it is not appealable. 

 Failure to file a written objection to the proposed findings and recommendations in the 

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar a party from a de novo determination by the District Court of 

                                                            

3

 The court notes that at the time of the entry of this Recommendation, Focia’s criminal trial, United 

States v. Focia, 2:15-cr-00017-AKK, is currently underway. 

Case 2:15-cv-00258-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 4
issues covered in the report and shall bar a party from attacking on appeal factual findings in the 

report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest 

injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, 

Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th 

Cir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth 

Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. 

Done this the 17th day of June, 2015. 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:15-cv-00258-WKW-CSC Document 8 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 4