Opinion
C/A 9:23-01881-JD-MHC
09-06-2023
Austin Walker, a/k/a Shayla Walker, Petitioner, v. Nick Gallam, Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Molly H. Cherry, United States Magistrate Judge.
Austin Walker, also known as Shayla Walker, seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
In the Court's Order dated June 27, 2023, Petitioner was given the opportunity to bring her case into proper form by providing the item specified in the Order. She was also advised of pleading deficiencies and given an opportunity to file an amended petition. See ECF No. 4. The Order was remailed to Petitioner on July 5, 2023. See ECF No. 7. Petitioner has not provided the proper form document and has not filed an amended petition.
Petitioner states that she identifies as female. ECF No. 1 at 1.
I. BACKGROUND
At the time she filed this Petition, Petitioner was a pretrial detainee at the Aiken County Detention Center and was challenging pending state criminal charges. On July 10, 2023, she pleaded guilty to two charges of assault and battery first degree (case numbers 2019A0210200419 and 2019A0210200420). See Aiken County Second Judicial Circuit Public Index, https://publicindex.sccourts.org/Aiken/PublicIndex/PISearch.aspx [search case numbers listed above] (last visited August 29, 2023). Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Kirkland Reception and Evaluation Center of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). See ECF No. 8.
A federal court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records, as well as those records of other courts. See Aloe Creme Labs., Inc. v. Francine Co., 425 F.2d 1295, 1296 (5th Cir. 1970); Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989) (noting that courts may take judicial notice of other courts' records and proceedings).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
A pro se habeas petition is reviewed pursuant to the procedural provisions of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings in the United States District Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996; and in light of the following precedents: Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324-25 (1989); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); and Todd v. Baskerville, 712 F.2d 70 (4th Cir.1983). The Court is charged with screening Petitioner's lawsuit to determine “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court[.]” Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C.A. foll. § 2254.
Pro se petitions are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys, and a court is charged with liberally construing a petition filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (outlining pleading requirements under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “all civil actions”).
III. DISCUSSION
A. Lack of Jurisdiction
This action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As noted above, Petitioner pleaded guilty to her state court charges and has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. She is currently housed at SCDC and is no longer held at the Aiken County Detention Center. Claims for habeas relief from pretrial detention are mooted by a subsequent conviction and sentence. See Rafa El v. Wright, No. 22-7409, 2023 WL 3073619 (4th Cir. Apr. 25, 2023) (dismissing appeal as moot because the petitioner pleaded guilty to the state criminal charge and was sentenced); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228-229 (5th Cir. 1993) (federal habeas relief for pretrial issues were mooted by the petitioner's subsequent conviction). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over the Petition and thus this action should be dismissed on that basis. See Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 72 (2013) (“If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a ‘personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,' at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot”); Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (vacating district court's denial of a § 2241 challenge to pretrial conviction, where petitioner was not a pretrial detainee when the district court ruled, and remanding with instructions to dismiss as moot); see also Sharma v. Unknown Respondent, 672 F. App'x. 308 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Jackson with approval).
B. Failure to Bring Case Into Proper Form
Additionally, Petitioner has failed to bring this case into proper form. In the Court's Order entered June 27, 2023, Petitioner was given the opportunity to bring her case into proper form by 3 paying the five-dollar filing fee for a habeas corpus action or completing and returning completed and signed Form AO-240 (application to proceed in forma pauperis).4 Petitio specifically warned that her failure to provide the necessary item within the timetable set the Order would subject the case to dismissal. See ECF No. 4.
The deadline for Petitioner to get her case into proper form has passed, and Petitio not provided the proper form item or contacted the Court in any way about this case. Thus found that this court has jurisdiction, it is recommended in the alternative that this ac dismissed in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 41. See Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U (1962); Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93, 95-96 (4th Cir. 1989) (holding that district dismissal following an explicit and reasonable warning was not an abuse of discretion).
IV. RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition in this action be DISM without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file a return.
Petitioner's attention is directed to the important notice on the next page.
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 835
Charleston, South Carolina 29402
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).