Opinion
Case No. CV412-272
11-26-2012
RICKY MAYNOR, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF AL ST. LAWRENCE, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Ricky Maynor, a pte-trial detainee held at the Chatham County Detention Center pending a state prosecution, has filed an application for writ of habeas corpus with this Court. While he uses a state form and styles his case as "In The Superior Court of Chatham County," he appears to be seeking federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) He insists that he is entitled to bail and is being held illegally. (Doc. 1 at 5.) He thus petitions for release. (Id. at 4.)
The Court GRANTS his IFP motion (doc. 2) but concludes his petition must be dismissed. Pretrial § 2241 petitions like this must be exhausted. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 2005) (all habeas corpus actions "require a petitioner to fully exhaust state remedies"); Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, $12 (11th Cir. 2004) (Tjoflat, J., concurring) ("Among the most fundamental common law requirements of § 2241 is that petitioners must first exhaust their state court remedies."). Georgia law allows him to raise his claim
either during state criminal proceedings or collaterally in a state habeas corpus action. See Perera v. Miller, 283 Ga. 583, 662 S.E.2d 544, 544 (Ga. 2008) (noting that criminal defendants can bring speedy trial claim and ineffective assistance of counsel claims during the course of criminal proceedings); Jackson v. State, 279 Ga. 449, 614 S.E.2d 781, 783-84 (Ga. 2005) (ruling on speedy trial claim and due process claim based on preindictment delay; claims initially brought in motion for a new trial and reasserted on direct appeal); Rainwater v. Langley, 277 Ga. 127, 587 S.E.2d 18, 19-20 (Ga. 2003) (challenging pretrial detention in state habeas petition); Banks v. Waldrop, 272 Ga. 475, 531 S.E.2d 708, 708 (Ga. 2000) (holding that challenge to pretrial detention based on contention of improper denial of bail is properly brought in state habeas petition); McClure v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 45, 214 S.E.2d 503, 506 (Ga. 1975) (holding that claim based on denial of a timely first appearance may be cognizable in habeas corpus action).Harvey v. Corbin, 2011 WL 4369828 at * 2 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 12, 2011). As in Harvey, Maynor "has not alleged, and there is nothing in the record to suggest, that he filed a state habeas petition challenging his pre-trial detention." Id. Therefore, his petition should be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE so that he may exhaust available state remedies. Doc. 1.
He did, however, file a "habeas action/mandamus" with the Georgia Court of Appeals, but he has not alleged that those proceedings have concluded. (Doc. 1 at 2-3.)
As an additional matter, Maynor has filed a petition for writ of mandamus. (Doc. 3.) Coming here instead of invoking and completing available state appellate remedies, however, is a mistake. See generally, 17B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 4252 (2008) ("The core of the rule laid down in Younger v. Harris , [401 U.S. 37 (1971),] and the other cases defining the doctrine of 'Our Federalism' is that a federal court, in the absence of unusual circumstances, cannot interfere with a pending state criminal prosecution") (footnotes omitted). So that motion (doc. 3) is also DENIED.
SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of November, 2012.
_______________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA