UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

___________________________________ )

LAFRANCES DUDLEY O’N EAL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) )

v. ) Civil Action No. 13

- 0180 (PLF) )

CLIFFORD KEENAN et al

. ) )

Defendants. )

___________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se petitioner LaFrances Dudley O’Neal has filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny her

petition and will dismiss this case.

LaFrances Dudley O’Neal is a defendant in a criminal case currently pending in

this Court before Judge Reggie B. Walton

. See U nited States v. O’Neal , Criminal No. 11

- 0355

- 1

(RBW). On March 27, 2013, a jury found O’Neal guilty of three counts of bank fr aud and one

count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and mail fraud. See id

. at Dkt. No. 111 ( Verdict

Form). Her sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for September 4, 2013.

Ms. O’Neal filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 11, 2013

,

shortly before her jury trial commenced

. In her petition, s he asserts that her pretrial detention is

unlawful for the following reasons: (1) she is actually innocent , as “[t] here exists no Act

processed by Congress that could become a valid statute” ; (2) this Court lacks subject matter and

personal jurisdiction; (3) the indictment failed to allege a federal crime; (4) the U.S. Attorney

failed to disclose relevant material fact s during trial; (5) the indictment failed to allege material2 elements of the crime; (6) counsel was ineffective; (7) there were incurable defects in the

indictment process; an d (8) United States agents failed to disclose favorable evidence to the

defendant. Pet. at 2

- 6 (Dkt. No. 1)

. 1

“ A court . . . entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall for thwith

award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not

be granted, unless it appears fr om the application that the applicant or person detained is not

entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Because a defendant may not use the habeas process to

collaterally attack an ongoing criminal proceeding in federal court , the Court finds that the

petit ioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and therefore decline s to issue a show cause

order

.

Absent exceptional ci rcumstances, a federal court may not entertain a habeas

corpus petition by a defendant seeking to challenge aspects of her ongoing federal criminal trial

,

as “the hearing on habeas corpus is not intended as a substitute for the functions of a trial court.”

Pelley v. Botkin , 152 F.2d 12, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1945) (upholding dismissal of habeas petition where

pet itioner sought to ch allenge validity of statute under which he was indicted in separ ate and

ongoing criminal proceedings) ; see also Gon v. Gonzales , 534 F. Supp. 2d 118, 119

- 20 (D.D.C.

2008) (dismissing habeas petition where petitioner could challenge pretrial detenti on order in

underlying criminal proceeding)

. Ms. O’Neal has had the oppo rtunity to raise her objections in

the criminal case before Judge Walton , and she will have the opportunity to do so again on

appeal. She must pursue her objections in the underlying crimina l proceeding before presenting

1 A n application for the writ must “allege the facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of

w hat claim or authority , if known. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. It is not clear where Ms. O’Neal is detained, or whether she is detained at all. In her petition, she asserts that she currently is in the custody of “Pretrial Services located at 333 Constitution Ave, Washington D.C. 20001,” which is

the address of the United States C ourthouse. See Pet. at 9.3 them in a habeas corpus petition. See Morrow v. Terrell , 715 F. Supp. 2d 479, 480 (S.D.N.Y.

2010) ( “ Because the issues that [petitioner] raises, if resolved in his favor, would be dispositive

of the underlying criminal charges for which he has been indicted, he must exhaust his claims at

trial and on direct appeal bef o re he can assert them in a habeas action.”)

.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition of LaFrances Dudley O’Neal for a writ of

habea s corpus will be denied, and this action will be dismissed. An Order accompanies this

Memorandum Opinion.

/s/

________________________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

DATE: August 9, 2013 United States District Judge