UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

__________________________________________ ) ROBERT A. REED, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2053 ( PL F) ) J OHN CAUL FI EL D, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter is befor e the Court to deter mine whether

a ce rtificate of appe alability is warr anted. The Court denied petitioner’ s petition for a wr it of habeas corpus by Memorandum Opinion and Orde r of Oc tober 16, 2009. See Reed v. Caulfie ld, Civi l Action No. 09-2053, Memorandum Opinion and O rder (D.D.C. Oc t. 16, 2009). Petitioner appea led the dec ision to t he United States Court of Appea ls for the District of Columbia Circuit. The c ourt of appe als is holding pe titioner’s matter in abe y ance pendingnotification from this Court of the issuance of a
cer tificate of appea lability , or a state ment why a ce rtificate should not iss ue. The Court conclude s that a ce rtificate of appe alability is not warra

nted and ther efor e dec lines to issue one. In a habeas corpus proce edingwher e the a pplicant complains of de tention arising from proc ess issued by

a state c ourt, “the a

pplicant ca

nnot take an a

ppeal unless a

circ uit just ice
or a c ircuit or district judg e issues a c ertificate of a ppeala bility under 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c).” See F E D . R. A P P . P. 22(b)( 1). A c ertifica te of a ppeala bility may issue “only

if the applica

nt has made a substantial showingof the de nial of a c onstitut ional rig ht.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)( 2). Where, a shere , the Court denied the habeas petition on procedur al grounds without rea chingany

underlying c onstitut ional claims, a c ertificate of a ppeala bility “should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of re ason would find it debata ble whethe r the pe tition s tates a va lid claim of the de nial of a c onstitut ional rig ht and that jurists of rea son would find it debatable whether the district court wa s corr ect in its proce dural ruling .” See Slac k v. McDa niel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “ Where a plain proce dural ba

r is prese nt and the district cour t is corre ct to invoke it to dispose of the ca se, a r easona ble jurist could not conclude e ither that the district cour t
err ed in dismissi ngthe petition or that the petitioner should be a llowed to proce ed fur ther.” I d. When petitioner filed his petition, he was a pretria l detainee awa iting trial in the Superior Court of the D istrict of Columbia on a char g e of f irst degree child sex abuse. See Pet. at 2. The pe tition challeng ed petitioner’ s criminal prosec ution and soug ht his “immediate rele ase from unlawf

ul confineme nt.” See id. at 5- 6. The Court denie d the petition while petitioner wa s still awa iting trial. Since the n, howeve r, a jury has found pe titioner g uilty of var ious offense s, and he w as sentenc ed on May 21, 2010; petitioner filed a notice of appe al on J une 7, 2010. See District of Columbia Superior Court, http:// www.dc courts.g ov/pa/, Crim No. 2009-CF1-015815 (last visited Aug . 26, 2010). Since pe titioner “is now held as a convicted de fenda

nt rather than
mere ly on a cr iminal charg e not y et broug ht to trial, the issue as to the leg ality of his continued pretria l detention has bee n mooted.” See T horne v. Warde n, 479 F.2d 297, 299 ( 2d Cir. 1973).

Moreove r, eve n if petitioner’s c laim reg ardinghis detention were not moot, the Court concludes that petitioner has not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right wa s denied to him. Be cause the petition was brought while petitioner wa s awa iting trial, it was g overne d by

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dickerson v. L ouisiana, 816 F .2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987) (“ Pre2trial petitions . . . are pr operly broug ht under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which applies to pe rsons in custody reg ardle ss of whethe r final judg ment has bee n rende red a nd reg ardle ss of the pre sent status of the ca se pendingag ainst [t hem].”); see a lso W illiams v. W arde n-Cent. Det. F acility , 538 F. Supp. 2d 74, 76 (D.D .C. 2008). And while Section 2241 esta blishes jurisdiction in t he fe dera l courts to consider

pretria l habeas corpus petitions, itis established that fede ral c ourts g ener ally should abstain from the e x erc ise of that jurisdiction “if the issues r aised in the pe tition m ay be resolved e ither by

trial on the merits in the state c ourt or by other state pr ocedur es ava ilable to the petitioner.” D icker son v. L ouisiana, 816 F .2d at 225. Indeed, “ [p] rior to a judg ment of conviction in state cour

t, ‘fede ral ha

beas c orpus does not lie, abse nt ‘specia l circumstanc es,’ to adjudicate the merits of a n aff irmative def

ense to a state cr iminal charg e prior to a judgme nt of conviction by

a state c ourt.’” Williams v. W arde n-Cent. Det. F acility , 538 F. Supp. 2d at 76 (quoting Br aden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky ., 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973)).

“[A] federa l court may

dismiss an ac tion when there is a direc t conflict betwe en the exercise of

fede ral a nd state jurisdiction and consider ations of comity and fe dera lism di ctate that the fe dera l court should defe r to the state pr ocee dings.” Hoai v. Sun Ref. and Mktg . Co., Inc., 866 F .2d 1515, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (c iting Young er v. H arr is, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1987) ). This defe renc e pre serve s “the de licate and important bala

nce be tween vig orous protec tion of fede ral rights and an a ppropriate respe ct for the state conduc t of state matter s.” See In re Justi ces of the Superior Court De p’t of the Ma
. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 ( 1st Cir. 2000). As the Court stated in its Memorandum Opinion of October 16, 2009, this “‘fundamental policy ag ainst fede ral interf

ere nce w ith state criminal prosec utions’” re quired that the pe tition be dism issed. See Ree d v. Caulfield, Civil Action
3No. 09-2053, at 2 (quoting Y oung er v. H arr is, 401 U.S. at 46). As the Court noted, petitioner

would have the opportunity to liti g ate his under lying c laims in the then pendingcriminal proce edingin the Superior Court, and none of petitioner’ s claims prese nted “spe cial circ umstances” justify ing f eder al interve ntion. See In re Justi ces of the Superior Court De p’t of the Ma. Tr ial Court, 218 F.3d at 19; Willi ams v. Warden- Cent. Det. F acility , 538 F. Supp. 2d at 77. Acc ording ly , g iven the cle ar c ase f or abstention, petitioner ha s not made the showing
nece ssary for issuanc e of a

cer tificate of appea lability
. 1 Be cause petitioner’s habeas corpus petition is m oot and, eve n if not moot, does not present a

substantial constituti onal issue, the Court conc ludes that a c ertificate of appea lability

under 28 U .S.C. § 2253(c)(2) is not warra nted. Acc ording ly , it is hereby ORDERED that no ce rtificate of appe alability shall be issued; and it is FURTHE R ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court is directed pr omptly to notify the Clerk of the court of a ppeals of this Memora

ndum Opinion and Orde r and pr ovide a c opy to him. SO ORDERED. /s/__________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DATE: August 26, 2010 United States District J udg e

After the Court denied the pe tition i n this case, pe titioner filed another habeas 1 corpus petition raising similar c laims. See Reed v. Wainwright, Civi l Action No. 10-0807, 2010 WL1980170 (D.D.C. May 17, 2010). A diff

ere nt judge of this Court also denied the pe tition on proce dural g rounds, “r efr ain[ing] from interfe ringwith ongoingSuperior Court proc eeding s.” See id. at *1 (c iting Young er v. H arr is, 401 U.S. at 45). 4