Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03115/USCOURTS-ca7-09-03115-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John R. Hackman
Appellee
Gary B. Williams
Appellant
Eric Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

*

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is

unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See FED. R. APP.

P. 34(a)(2).

**John Hackman, the United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Virginia, is

substituted for Eric Wilson as respondent.  See FED. R. APP. P. 23(a); United States v. Turner,

569 F.3d 637, 642 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 654 (2009) .

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted February 3, 2010*

Decided February 4, 2010

Before

KENNETH F. RIPPLE, Circuit Judge

TERENCE T. EVANS, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 09‐3115

GARY B. WILLIAMS, Appeal from the United States

            Petitioner‐Appellant, District Court for the Northern

District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.

No. 09 C 1509

JOHN R. HACKMAN,**

United States Marshal, Ruben Castillo,

Eastern District of Virginia Judge.

Respondent‐Appellee.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1

Case: 09-3115 Document: 12 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 2
No. 09‐3115 Page 2

O R D E R

Gary Williams, a federal pretrial detainee, filed an amended petition for a writ of

habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his continued confinement violates his

statutory right to a speedy trial.  Williams filed his petition in the Northern District of

Illinois while confined temporarily in Chicago, but the underlying prosecution is in the

Eastern District of Virginia.  He seeks dismissal of the indictment.  The district court denied

the petition without prejudice to Williams seeking relief in the district where the

prosecution is pending.

Even though Williams mentions the Sixth Amendment in his appellate brief, his

petition was premised entirely on the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161–74.  By

failing to develop a constitutional argument, Williams waived any Sixth Amendment claim.

See United States v. Loera, 565 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 654 (2009).  As for

the statutory claim, the Speedy Trial Act allows dismissal of an indictment if the time

constraints of the Act are not followed, 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); United States v. Gearhart, 576

F.3d 459, 462 (7th Cir. 2009), but a district court in Chicago has no authority to dismiss an

indictment pending in another district, see United States v. Green, 499 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C. Cir.

1974).  In any event, a federal pretrial detainee cannot use § 2241 to preempt the judge

presiding over the criminal case.  See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391‐92 (1918) (“It is well

settled that 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.”); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018‐19 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (stating

that federal defendants cannot use § 2241 to challenge pretrial detention orders that can be

challenged under 18 U.S.C. § 3145); United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1987)

(same).  Accordingly, the dismissal of Williams’s petition is AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-3115 Document: 12 Filed: 02/04/2010 Pages: 2