Opinion
No. CIV 18-069-RAW-SPS
05-08-2018
JASON E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, a pro se pretrial detainee who is incarcerated in the Okmulgee County Jail in Okmulgee, Oklahoma, filed this civil rights complaint under the authority of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges he has been denied his constitutional rights of due process, equal protection, and a speedy trial. He seeks relief in the form of dismissal of his pending charges and his release from custody (Dkt. 1 at 5). The requested relief, however, is not available in this action.
Plaintiff does not state which of his criminal cases he is challenging. --------
"[A] prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement . . . must do so through an application for habeas corpus." Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035 (10th Cir. 2012) (citing McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997)). A state pretrial detainee may bring a habeas action in federal court to "demand enforcement of the [State's] affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to trial." Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 490 (1973) (citation omitted). He, however, may not seek habeas relief to forestall state prosecution altogether. See id. at 490-91; Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 (10th Cir. 1993) (holding that pretrial habeas petition can only seek to force the state to go to trial). Therefore, if Plaintiff wants to pursue his claim regarding a speedy trial, he must file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, after exhausting available state court remedies. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000).
ACCORDINGLY, this action is, in all respects, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of May 2018. Dated this 8th day of May, 2018.
/s/_________
Ronald A. White
United States District Judge
Eastern District of Oklahoma