Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

SHARON JOHNSON

COLEMAN

Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 4534 DATE July 26, 2012

CASE

TITLE

Yahey Raheem Hammurabi El Bey a/k/a John Robert Smith (#2012-0003551) vs.

Sheriff Paul Kalupas

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

The petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis[#3] is granted. However, the petitioner is ordered

to show good cause in writing why his habeas petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state court

remedies prior to seeking federal habeas relief. Failure of the petitioner to show cause within thirty days will

result in summary dismissal of this case pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine, as well as 28 U.S.C. §§

2241(c) and 2243. The petitioner is advised that he must provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy

of every document filed. 

O [For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT

The petitioner, a pretrial detainee in the custody of the Will County Detention Facility, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus purportedly pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner appears to claim

that there was no valid reason for his arrest for failing to register as a sex offender because his underlying

conviction triggering the obligation to register was reversed. 

The petitioner having shown that he is indigent, his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted. However, the petitioner is ordered to show good cause in writing why the petition should not be

summarily dismissed for failure to exhaust state court remedies prior to filing suit, as well as pursuant to the

Younger abstention doctrine. 

Although federal district courts have jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petitions, they grant such relief only

sparingly. Neville v. Cavanagh, 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir. 1979). “[F]ederal habeas corpus does not lie, absent 

‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a

judgment of conviction by a state court.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489

(1973). Furthermore, while applicants for habeas relief under Section 2241 are not subject to the statutory

requirement of exhaustion of remedies, “federal courts nevertheless may require, as a matter of comity, that such

(CONTINUED)

mjm

Page 1 of 2
STATEMENT (continued)

detainees exhaust all avenues of state relief before seeking the writ.” United States v. Castor, 937 F.2d 293, 296-97

(7th Cir. 1991); Braden, 410 U.S. at 489-92. The exhaustion doctrine requires a petitioner to use available state

procedures to pursue his or her claim before seeking federal habeas corpus relief, “thereby giving the State the

opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ federal rights.” Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S.

27, 29 (2005) (citations omitted). 

To provide the State with the necessary “ opportunity,” the prisoner must “fairly present” his or her claim

at each level of review in the state court system (including a state supreme court with powers of discretionary

review) so that the state courts are alerted to the federal nature of the claim. Id. In most cases, courts will not

consider claims that can be raised at trial and in subsequent state proceedings. Here, there is no evidence that the

petitioner has exhausted state court remedies. Indeed, exhaustion seems highlyunlikelysince the petitioner appears

to indicate that he was arrested just over a month ago. If the petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies, his

federal habeas petition is not ripe for review.

Furthermore, irrespective of concerns of exhaustion, it should be noted that federal courts are largely

prohibited from interfering in pending state criminal proceedings, in deference to principles of equity, comity, and

federalism. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53 (1971); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965); Village

of Depue, Illinois v. Exxcon Mobile Corp., 537 F.3d 775, 783 (7th Cir. 2008). This case appears to meet the criteria

for Younger abstention, see factors set forth in Barichello v. McDonald, 98 F.3d 948, 955 (7th Cir. 1996), and the

court is not satisfied that “extraordinary” circumstances exist, such as official bad faith or harassment involved in

the enforcement of state laws, so as to justify an exception to the abstention rule. Younger, 401 U.S. at 4;

Arkebauerv. Kiley, 985 F.2d 1351, 1358 (7th Cir. 1993). Under the facts of this case, the district court discerns no

basis for intervening in ongoing state criminal proceedings. 

Forthe foregoing reasons, the petitioner is ordered to show good cause in writing why the petition for a writ

of habeas corpus should not be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c) and 2243 for failure to exhaust state court

remedies as well as pursuant to Younger, supra. Failure to show cause within thirty days will result in summary

dismissal of this case.

The petitioner is advised that he is required to provide the court with the original plus a judge’s copy

of every document filed.

Page 2 of 2