UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADAM LOGAN,

Petitioner, Case Number 15-12104

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

DAVID REYNOLDS,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

Adam Logan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging that

he is being held by the Porter County, Indiana Sheriff in Valparaiso, Indiana awaiting extradition

to Detroit, Michigan to answer for a state criminal charge pending against him there. Logan asks

the Court to order either that he be extradited immediately, or that he be released so he can surrender

himself to Michigan authorities. After reviewing the petition, it appears that Logan has not

exhausted his state court remedies, which a prisoner must do before applying to the federal courts

for habeas corpus relief. Therefore, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court

will dismiss the petition without prejudice. 

I.

According to the petition, Logan was charged with a crime in Michigan sometime before

March of this year. He says the case was dismissed on March 17, 2015 because the victim did not

cooperate in the prosecution, and he was allowed to return to Indiana. He says that he was not

notified that a warrant was reissued, either by state authorities or his attorney, to whom he owes

2:15-cv-12104-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 14
money. He had been held in Indiana for seven days at the time he filed his petition, and he believes

that the Detroit authorities do not plan to extradite him immediately. 

From the petition, it appears that the federal court is the first place Logan has turned to lodge

his complaint about the delay. He has not attempted, so it appears, to obtain relief from the

authorities of Michigan or Indiana. 

II.

When a habeas corpus petition is filed the Court must promptly examine the petition to

determine “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases. If the Court

determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court will dismiss the petition summarily. 

McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily

any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”). The Rules Governing Section

2254 cases may be applied at the discretion of the district court judge to petitions under habeas

statutes in addition to § 2254. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

Section 2241, Title 28 United States Code confers upon federal courts jurisdiction to

consider habeas corpus petitions filed by pretrial detainees, such as Logan. Atkins v. People of the

State of Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981). However, “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.” Ibid. Under the

doctrine of comity, federal courts will avoid unwarranted intrusion into state court proceedings so

as to reduce friction between state and federal court systems, allowing state courts the opportunity

to correct a constitutional violation in the first instance. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842

-2-

2:15-cv-12104-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 15
(1999). The requirement that a habeas petitioner exhaust state court remedies before seeking relief

in federal court “protect[s] the state courts’ opportunity to confront initially and resolve

constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions and to limit federal judicial interference in state

adjudicatory processes.” Ibid. 

The petitioner has not alleged that he has exhausted his state-court remedies concerning the

extradition proceedings. Michigan and Indiana have enacted the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act

(UCEA). Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.1 et. seq.; Ind. Code § 35-33-10-3 (1988). The UCEA

establishes extradition procedures “to facilitate the administration of justice between states.” Barton

v. Norrod, 106 F.3d 1289, 1295 (6th Cir. 1997). Claims alleging that a state has failed to comply

with the requirements of the UCEA are properly filed in the asylum state, in this case, Indiana. 

If the petitioner means to argue that his right to a speedy trial has been abridged, he also must

seek relief first in the state courts. See Atkins, 644 F.3d at 546-47 (holding that although a federal

court may consider a pretrial habeas corpus petition in certain circumstances, including one where

a petitioner seeks a speedy trial, the petitioner must exhaust the speedy trial claim before seeking

habeas relief). The petitioner can exhaust this claim in state court by filing a pretrial motion and,

if the motion is denied, filing an interlocutory appeal. See People v. Reid, 113 Mich. App. 262, 268

(1982); Jenkins v. Montgomery County Jail, 641 F. Supp. 148 (M.D. Tenn. 1986) (dismissing habeas

petition filed by pretrial detainee alleging due process violations where petitioner failed to provide

state courts with initial opportunity to pass upon claims). 

A federal court may “sometimes appropriately interfere by habeas corpus in advance of final

action by the authorities of the State,” but such cases are “exceptional” and require demonstration

of “great urgency.” Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U.S. 179, 182 (1907); Smith v. Evans, No. 08-11188,

-3-

2:15-cv-12104-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 16
2008 WL 880007, *2 (E.D. Mich. March 31, 2008). The petitioner has explained that he needs to

get back to work and care for his two-year-old son. But that need does not excuse his obligation to

seek relief in the state court systems first, nor does it justify interference by this Court in a matter

pending in state court. 

III.

The claims raised in the habeas petition are unexhausted and therefore do not present

grounds upon which this Court may grant habeas relief at this time. The petition will be dismissed

without prejudice. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: July 20, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

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

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on July 20, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-4-

2:15-cv-12104-DML-DRG Doc # 5 Filed 07/20/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 17