Source: http://id.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20191029_0000604.DID.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 20:00:54
Document Index: 592792223

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2243', '§ 2', '§ 2241', '§ 2241', '§ 2254']

FindACase™ | Sather v. Fifth District, Twin Falls
Sather v. Fifth District, Twin Falls
MICHAEL PATRICK SATHER, Petitioner,
FIFTH DISTRICT, TWIN FALLS, STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
Petitioner Michael Patrick Sather is a Nebraska prisoner presently detained in the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center in Lincoln, Nebraska. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking an order instructing an Idaho state court to dismiss pending criminal charges. (Dkt. 1.) Because Petitioner is challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings, the Court construes the Petition as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
In its discretion, the Court may apply the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) to habeas petitions filed pursuant to § 2241. See Habeas Rule 1(b). Therefore, the Court now reviews the Petition to determine whether it appears to be subject to summary dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Habeas Rule 4.
In September 2015, in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Twin Falls County, Idaho, Petitioner was charged with burglary and theft by deception. See State v. Sather, Twin Falls Cnty. No. CR42-15-11600, docket accessible at https://icourt.idaho.gov/. At that time, Petitioner was incarcerated in Iowa. (Pet., Dkt. 1, at 1-2.)
In October 2016, the Twin Falls County prosecutor lodged a detainer against Petitioner, in Iowa, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), 18 U.S.C. § 2. The IAD is an interstate compact that “creates uniform procedures for lodging and executing a detainer by one State against a prisoner held in another.” United States v. Lualemaga, 280 F.3d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2002). According to Petitioner, he was not transported to Idaho to face the pending criminal charges within the 180-day period set forth in the IAD. (Dkt. 1 at 2-3.)
Petitioner's Iowa state sentence expired in May 2018. (Id. at 3.) At some point between May 2018 and the present, Petitioner became a Missouri state prisoner and then a Nebraska state prisoner. (See Id. at 9; Dkt 11.) It is unclear whether Petitioner was transferred between prisons, or whether he was released in one state and later re-incarcerated in another.
Petitioner states that a second Idaho detainer was lodged against him in July 2018, which he refused to sign, “knowing that the original (IAD) was violated.” (Id.) Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss in his Twin Falls County criminal case, and a hearing was held on that motion in October 2018. See Twin Falls County iCourt Database, No. CR42-15-11600, https://icourt.idaho.gov/, (accessed Sept. 10, 2019).
According to the iCourt Database, it appears that Petitioner's motions to dismiss remain pending in the Twin Falls County criminal case. See Id. (showing additional motions to dismiss filed on April 17 and 18, 2019.) A status conference in that case is scheduled for December 27, 2019. Id.
Petitioner asks that this Court order the Twin Falls County Court to dismiss the pending criminal charges against Petitioner based on alleged violations of the IAD and of his constitutional right to a speedy trial.[1] (Dkt. 1 at 6-7; Dkt 2.)
Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 gives federal courts jurisdiction to issue pretrial writs of habeas corpus to state criminal defendants in appropriate cases. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-93 (1973). A pre-requisite to bringing a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is exhausting one's federal claims in state court.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As with all federal habeas corpus petitions, &sect; 2241 claims that challenge detainers under the IAD must first be exhausted in state courts. Id.; Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980); Cain v. Petrovsley, 798 F.2d 1194, 1195 (8th Cir. 1986). The exhaustion doctrine requires that a petitioner give the state courts, through the designated appellate process, &ldquo;a full and fair opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims&rdquo; before bringing those claims to federal court. See O&#39;Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (explaining exhaustion in the context of habeas petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254). To do so, the petitioner must invoke one complete round of the state's established appellate review process, fairly presenting all constitutional claims to the state courts so that they have a full and fair opportunity to correct alleged ...