UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

SCOTT ZAKI, 

 Petitioner, Case No. 14-cv-12884 

v Honorable Thomas L. Ludington 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

__________________________________________/ 

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

Scott Zaki, (“Petitioner”), confined at the Sanilac County Jail in Sandusky, Michigan, 

seeks the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In his pro se 

application, Petitioner challenges his currently-pending federal prosecution in the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for one count of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute and to distribute Methylone, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(c), 21 U.S.C. § 

846. For the reasons stated below, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is summarily denied 

with prejudice. 

I. 

Petitioner is currently charged with the above offense in a case pending before Judge 

Victoria A. Roberts of the United States Eastern District of Michigan. Petitioner is represented 

by counsel in that case. See United States v. Zaki, U.S.D.C. No. 2:14-CR-20281 (E.D. Mich. 

(Roberts, J.).1

 

1

 This Court obtained some of this information from the records of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Michigan, which this Court is permitted to take judicial notice of. See United States v. Rigdon, 459 F.2d 

379, 380 (6th Cir. 1972). 

1:14-cv-12884-TLL-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 28
- 2 - 

Petitioner has now filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, in which he seeks habeas 

relief on the ground that the indictment issued by the grand jury is defective. 

II. 

 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus must set forth facts that give rise to a cause of 

action under federal law or it may summarily be dismissed. See Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. 

Supp. 2d 790, 796 (E.D. Mich. 2001). Federal courts are also authorized to dismiss any habeas 

petition that appears legally insufficient on its face. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 

(1994). A federal district court is authorized to summarily dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it 

plainly appears from the face of the petition or the exhibits that are attached to it that the 

petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. See Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th 

Cir. 1999); Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. The Sixth Circuit, in 

fact, long ago indicated that they “disapprove the practice of issuing a show cause order [to the 

respondent] until after the District Court first has made a careful examination of the petition.” 

Allen v. Perini, 424 F.3d 134, 140 (6th Cir. 1970). A district court therefore has the duty to 

screen out any habeas corpus petition which lacks merit on its face. Id. at 141. No return to a 

habeas petition is necessary when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacks merit, or where the 

necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself without consideration of a return by the 

state. Id. Courts have used Rule 4 of the habeas corpus rules to summarily dismiss facially 

insufficient habeas petitions brought under § 2241. See e.g. Perez, 157 F. Supp. 2d at 796 

(additional citations omitted). Because the instant petition is facially insufficient to grant habeas 

relief, the petition is subject to summary dismissal. Id. 

 Petitioner filed a habeas petition to challenge his pending federal prosecution before 

Judge Roberts. It is well-established that a criminal defendant cannot file a petition for writ of 

1:14-cv-12884-TLL-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 29
- 3 - 

habeas corpus to raise defenses to a pending federal criminal prosecution. See Jones v. Perkins, 

245 U.S. 390, 391 (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.”); Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547 (1905); Horning v. 

Seifart, 107 F.3d 11 (Table), No. 1997 WL 58620, at *1 (6th Cir. February 11, 1997); Ferguson 

v. Gilliam, 946 F. 2d 894 (Table), No. 1991 WL 206516, at *1 (6th Cir. October 11, 1991). 

Petitioner’s claim that the indictment is defective would be dispositive of his pending federal 

criminal charge and must be exhausted at trial and on appeal in the federal courts before habeas 

corpus relief would be available. See Sandles v. Hemingway, 22 F. App’x 557 (6th Cir. 2001). 

Petitioner therefore cannot challenge his pending federal prosecution in his current habeas 

petition. Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner challenges any pre-trial detention order, the 

appropriate vehicle for Petitioner to challenge his pre-trial detention is an expedited appeal 

procedure provided by the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), (c), and not a habeas corpus 

petition. See Whitmer v. Levi, 276 F. App’x 217, 219 (3rd Cir. 2008). 

III. 

 Based upon the foregoing, the petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 is summarily denied. Because a certificate of appealability is not needed to appeal 

the denial of a habeas petition filed under § 2241, Witham v. United States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 

(6th Cir. 2004), Petitioner need not apply for one with this Court or with the Sixth Circuit before 

filing an appeal from the denial of his habeas petition. 

1:14-cv-12884-TLL-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 30
- 4 - 

 Accordingly, it is ORDERED the Petitioner Zaki’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 

(ECF No. 1) is SUMMARILY DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. 

s/Thomas L. Ludington 

 THOMAS L. LUDINGTON 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: September 2, 2014 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served 

upon Scott Zaki #50157-039 at Sanilac County Jail, 65 N. Elk Street, 

Sandusky, MI 48471 byfirst class U.S. mail on September 2, 2014. 

 s/Tracy A. Jacobs 

 TRACY A. JACOBS 

1:14-cv-12884-TLL-MKM Doc # 6 Filed 09/02/14 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 31