NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

COTTRELL STEWART, :

: Civil Action No. 10-6428 (JBS)

Petitioner, :

:

v. : OPINION

:

CAMDEN COUNTY CORRECTIONAL :

FACILITY, et al., :

:

Respondents. :

APPEARANCES:

Petitioner pro se

Cottrell Stewart

Camden County Correctional Facility

Camden, NJ 08102

SIMANDLE, District Judge

Petitioner Cottrell Stewart, a pre-trial detainee currently

confined at Camden County Correctional Facility at Camden, New

Jersey, has submitted a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The named respondents are Camden 1

County Correctional Facility and Camden County Police

 Section 2241 provides in relevant part: 1

(a) Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the

Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts

and any circuit judge within their respective

jurisdictions.

(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a

prisoner unless-- ... (3) He is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United

States ... .

Case 1:10-cv-06428-JBS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 31
Department. Because it appears from a review of the Petition 2

that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Petition will be

dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner asserts that he is a pre-trial detainee who was

arrested pursuant to a warrant. He challenges the validity of

the warrant and his detention without a probable cause hearing. 

Petitioner also asserts that the $50,000 bail is too high.

Petitioner is represented by counsel in his state criminal

proceedings. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges

against him, but has not otherwise exhausted his state remedies. 

Petitioner seeks all appropriate relief.

II. STANDARDS FOR A SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

United States Code Title 28, Section 2243 provides in

relevant part as follows:

A court, justice or judge entertaining an

application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith

award the writ or issue an order directing the

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be

granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.

 These entities are not proper respondents to a habeas 2

petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-36 (2004)

(“in habeas challenges to present physical confinement - ‘core

challenges’ - the default rule is that the proper respondent is

the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held”)

(citations omitted); 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Because this Petition is

otherwise dismissible, this Court need not rest its decision on

the failure to name a proper respondent.

2

Case 1:10-cv-06428-JBS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 32
A pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than

more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429

U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be

construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce

v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney

General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v.

Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399

U.S. 912 (1970). Nevertheless, a federal district court can

dismiss a habeas corpus petition if it appears from the face of

the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See

Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996); Siers v. Ryan, 773

F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989). 

See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243, 2255.

III. ANALYSIS

Addressing the question whether a federal court should ever

grant a pre-trial writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner, the

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held:

(1) federal courts have “pre-trial” habeas corpus

jurisdiction;

(2) that jurisdiction without exhaustion should not be

exercised at the pre-trial stage unless

extraordinary circumstances are present ... ;

(3) where there are no extraordinary circumstances and

where petitioner seeks to litigate the merits of a

constitutional defense to a state criminal charge,

the district court should exercise its “pre-trial”

habeas jurisdiction only if petitioner makes a

3

Case 1:10-cv-06428-JBS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 33
special showing of the need for such adjudication

and has exhausted state remedies.

Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 443 (3d Cir. 1975).

Exhaustion is required of a state pre-trial detainee seeking

a federal writ of habeas corpus. In the absence of exhaustion,

this Court should exercise pre-trial habeas jurisdiction only if

“extraordinary circumstances are present.” 

Petitioner has admitted that he did not exhaust his state

court remedies during the few weeks between the date of his

arrest and the date he submitted this Petition. He has not

alleged any extraordinary circumstances that would justify this

Court’s exercise of jurisdiction at this time. Accordingly,

there is no basis for this Court to intervene in this pending

state criminal proceeding.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Petition will be

dismissed without prejudice. An appropriate order follows.

s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

Jerome B. Simandle

United States District Judge

Dated: December 12, 2011

4

Case 1:10-cv-06428-JBS Document 3 Filed 12/12/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 34