United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM H. BARBOUR, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court, sua sponte, for consideration of
dismissal Petitioner Alvin Brown is presently incarcerated at
the Hinds County Detention Facility, Raymond, Mississippi.
Pet.  at 1. Petitioner filed this petition for habeas
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 15, 2017.
Id. The Court, having considered Petitioner's
pro se habeas petition and the relevant authorities, finds
that this habeas petition should be dismissed for the reasons
is challenging criminal charges of manslaughter and
aggravated assault pending against him in the Circuit Court
of Hinds County, Mississippi. Pet.  at 2. Petitioner's
convictions for aggravated assault and manslaughter were
reversed and remanded by the Mississippi Supreme Court on May
4, 2017. See Id. at 3; see also Brown v.
State, No. 2014-CT-331, 2017 WL 2544857, at *7 (Miss.
2017). The Mississippi Supreme Court remanded
Petitioner's Acase to the trial court for a new trial
consistent with this opinion” Id.
Petitioner's grounds for relief in the instant civil
habeas action are as follows:
Ground One: That my right to receive a fair and speedy trial
has been violated[.]
Ground Two: Whether the exclusion of my only witness denied
my right to rec[ei]ve a fair trial[.]
Ground Three: Whether the State failed to meet the required
constitutional standards in proving the elements of the
offenses alleged in the indictment[.]
Ground Four: Whether I was subjected to double jeopardy[.]
Pet.  at 6-8. Petitioner is requesting as relief that this
Court reverse the decisions of the Mississippi Supreme Court
or dismissed with prejudice Petitioner's indictment
charging him with aggravated assault and manslaughter.
Id. at 8.
pre-trial detainee like Petitioner has the right to seek
federal habeas relief, the availability of such relief is not
without limits. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of
Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973). A[F]ederal habeas
corpus does not lie, absent 'special circumstances, '
to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state
criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state
court.” Id. at 489 (citing Ex parte
Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 253 (1886)). Furthermore, a
petitioner is not permitted to derail Aa pending state
proceeding by an attempt to litigate constitutional defenses
prematurely in federal court.” Id. at 493.
United States Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between a
pre-trial petitioner seeking to Aabort a state proceeding or
to disrupt the orderly functioning of state judicial
processes” and a petitioner seeking only to enforce the
state's obligation to bring him promptly to trial.
Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir.
1976) (citing Braden, 410 U.S. at 489-90; Smith
v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969)). The Fifth Circuit has
held that the distinction is based on the type of relief
requested by the petitioner. Id. If the petitioner
is seeking to dismiss an indictment or otherwise prevent
prosecution of the case, then he is seeking to Aabort a state
proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of state
judicial processes.” Id. But if the petitioner
is attempting to Aforce the state to go to trial, ”
then he is merely seeking to force the state to fulfill its
obligation to provide petitioner with a prompt trial.
Id. A[A]n attempt to dismiss an indictment or
otherwise prevent a prosecution is of the first type, ”
and this Aobjective is normally not attainable through
federal habeas corpus.” Id.
Petitioner's requested relief clearly seeks the dismissal
of the pending state criminal charges against Petitioner,
see Pet.  at 8, and is therefore, attempting Ato
abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly
functioning of state judicial processes" which is not
available through federal habeas corpus. See Dickerson v.
State of La,816 F.2d 220, 226 (5th Cir.1987) (quoting