Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Naylor v. Sollie

United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division

February 1, 2018




         BEFORE THIS COURT are three (3) interrelated matters: the respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 15]; the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Linda Anderson for acceptance, or rejection or modification [Docket no. 18]; and the Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 19].

         The petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed under the authority of Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241[1" name="FN1" id= "FN1">1], asks this court to order the State of Mississippi to release him from pretrial confinement in the Lauderdale County Jail, in Lauderdale County, Mississippi; or, alternatively, to dismiss the criminal charges pending against him. The petitioner in this matter is acting pro se.[2]“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed, ' Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). Cf. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f) (‘All pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice').” Erickson v. Pardus, 1 U.S. 89');">551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197');">127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007). “Despite our general willingness to construe pro se filings liberally, we still require pro se parties to fundamentally ‘abide by the rules that govern the federal courts.'” E.E.O.C. v. Simbaki, Ltd., 767 F.3d 475, 484 (5th Cir. 2014), as revised (Sept. 18, 2014)(citing Frazier v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 541 Fed.Appx. 419, 421 (5th Cir.2013)).

         The State of Mississippi arrested the petitioner for murder and forcible rape. The Lauderdale County Circuit Court proceeded against the petitioner on the forcible rape charge and, as stated below, ultimately dismissed the forcible rape. The State of Mississippi, however, is still seemingly investigating the murder charge. The petitioner alleges that the State of Mississippi also charged him with human trafficking, presumably in violation of Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-54.1[3]. [Docket no. 1, P. 5].[4]

         In her Report and Recommendation, filed on August 21, 2017, Magistrate Judge Linda Anderson found that the respondent's Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 15] was due to be granted because the underlying charges that the petitioner is challenging in this lawsuit sub judice were still pending in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Mississippi, that clearly petitioner was attempting to derail state criminal charges before the State could act on the charges in the state criminal court (see Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 10 U.S. 484');">410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973)); and that petitioner had not exhausted state remedies (see Brown v. Estelle 1280');">530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976)). Further, found the Magistrate Judge, although the petitioner raised speedy trial concerns, the State of Mississippi had stated its plans to proceed immediately on the petitioner's trial setting. Magistrate Judge Anderson further directed the pro se prisoner plaintiff to submit within fourteen (14) days any objections to the Report and Recommendation. The petitioner did not file formal objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; instead, he filed his Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 19] which this court construed, as explained infra, as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

         After Magistrate Judge Anderson filed her Report and Recommendation, the State of Mississippi nolle prossed[5] the petitioner's forcible rape charge. Seven (7) days later, Lauderdale County Justice Court Judge Gerald Thompson signed an order releasing the petitioner on a recognizance bond for the murder charge under which the petitioner still suffers.

         The petitioner's Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 19] does not ask this court to dismiss his lawsuit; rather, it asks this court to dismiss the State of Mississippi's charge of forcible rape against him. This court, therefore, will construe the petitioner's Motion to Dismiss [Docket no. 19] as his notice of opposition to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Anderson [Docket no. 18]. Still, the petitioner's forcible rape charge has been nolle prossed.

         Relative to petitioner's speedy trial concerns, as stated above, the forcible rape charge has been nolle prossed and petitioner has been released from confinement on a recognizance bond.

         This court thus finds that this case should be dismissed as this court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Docket no. 18]. The State of Mississippi has nolle prossed the forcible rape charge against the petitioner and released him on recognizance on the murder charge. Further, this court is persuaded, as was Magistrate Judge, that the instant petition fails to state a claim upon which habeas relief may be granted where it attempts to derail a state court criminal proceeding and because the petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

         This court thus GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Respondent. [Docket no. 15]. The Respondent's motion is in lockstep with the Report and Recommendation of the United State Magistrate Judge.

         This court hereby DENIES petitioner's Motion to Dismiss. [Docket no. 19].

         Finally, this court commensurately DISMISSES this lawsuit in its entirety WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The parties are to bear their own costs. His motion attacks the State's evidence against him and requests a dismissal of the forcible rape charge. As stated herein, that charge has been nolle prossed. He mentions speedy trial concerns, but he is now free on a recognizance bond.

         A final order adverse to the petitioner having been filed in the captioned habeas corpus case, in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court or a proceeding pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the court, considering the record in the case and the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2253, Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2241 Cases in the United States District Courts, hereby finds that:

         A Certificate of Appealability should not issue. The applicant has failed to make a substantial showing of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.