United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT 28 U.S.C. § 2241
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BE DISMISSED
C. GARGIULO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
THE COURT is the pro se Petition of Derrious
De'Carlos Taylor (“Petitioner”) for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1).
At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner was a pretrial
detainee at Lauderdale County Detention Facility in Meridian,
Mississippi. Petitioner has since entered a guilty plea and
been sentenced. Respondent Billy Sollie, the Sheriff of
Lauderdale County, Mississippi, has filed a Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 13), asserting that the Petition is moot. Petitioner
did not respond to the Motion to Dismiss, and he did not
respond to an Order to Show Cause requiring him to respond to
the Motion to Dismiss. Having considered the submissions by
Respondent, the record, and relevant legal authority, the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge concludes that the
Petition is moot, and Respondent's Motion to Dismiss
should be granted.
was indicted in state court on June 28, 2017, for conspiracy
to commit the crime of possession of methamphetamine with
intent, within a correctional facility (count one),
conspiracy to commit the crime of possession of marijuana,
with intent, within a correctional facility (count two),
possession of marijuana, more than thirty (30) grams but less
one (1) kilogram, with intent, within a correctional facility
(count three), and possession of methamphetamine, with
intent, within a correctional facility (count four) (ECF No.
13-1). While a pretrial detainee, Petitioner filed his
§2241 Petition, alleging that the State of Mississippi
violated his constitutional right to a fast and speedy trial
(ECF No. 1 at p. 7). Petitioner requested that the charges
against him be dropped and that he be released from custody
(ECF No. 8 &10).
moved to dismiss the Petition, urging that Petitioner was
attempting to derail the state court proceedings and
prematurely litigate constitutional claims in federal court
(ECF No. 13). Respondent maintained that Petitioner did not
exhaust available state court remedies with respect to his
demand for a speedy trial before seeking relief in federal
months after Respondent filed his Motion to Dismiss and after
the Court entered an Order to Show Cause requiring Petitioner
to respond, Respondent informed the Court that Petitioner had
entered a plea of guilty to the crime of possession of
methamphetamine with intent to distribute (ECF No. 15).
Petitioner was sentenced by the Circuit Court of Lauderdale
County to fifteen years in the custody of the Mississippi
Department of Corrections, with twelve years suspended, and
five years reporting supervised probation. Upon the
prosecution's motion, the Circuit Court entered an order
to nolle prosequi the remaining counts of the
pretrial detainee's suit challenging his incarceration is
properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
“which applies to persons in custody regardless of
whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of
the present status of the case pending against him.”
Dickerson v. State of La., 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th
Cir. 1987). The “purpose of the writ [filed pursuant
to' 2241] is not to examine the validity of any judgment,
but merely to inquire into the legality of a
detention.” Fain v. Duff, 488 F.2d 218, 222
(5th Cir. 1973) (citations omitted).
under § 2241 is limited. “[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.” Braden v. 30thJudicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (citing
Ex parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 253 (1886)). A
petitioner is not permitted to derail “a 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
pretrial petitioner seeking to “abort 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
(5thCir. 1976) (citing Braden, 410 U.S.
at 489-490). If a petitioner is attempting to dismiss the
indictment against him or otherwise prevent prosecution of
the case against him, then he is seeking to “abort a
state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly functioning of
state judicial processes.” Id. If the
petitioner is attempting to “force 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. The former objective is generally not
attainable through federal habeas corpus; the latter is.
an action “is not moot simply because a § 2241
petitioner is no longer in custody, ” it is rendered
moot “when the court cannot grant the relief requested
by the moving party.” Salgado v. Fed. Bureau of
Prisons, 220 Fed.Appx. 256, 257 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing
Bailey v. Southerland, 821 F.2d 277, 278 (5th Cir.
1987) (finding §2241 petition moot where prisoner who
asked to be released from confinement was released from
confinement)); see United States ex rel. Lynn v.
Downer, 322 U.S. 756, 756 (1944) (finding petition for
writ of certiorari moot where petitioner was no longer in
respondent's custody); Salinas v. U.S. Marshals
Serv., 111 Fed.Appx. 782, 783 (5th Cir. 2004)
(“because [petitioner] has already been released from
federal custody, there is no relief this court can grant . .
Petition, Petitioner seeks a speedy trial. The Court cannot
grant this relief. This request has been rendered moot
because Petitioner has now been convicted and sentenced.
See Elmore v. Ford, No. 2:11-cv-256-KS-MTP, 2012 WL
1715325 (S.D.Miss. Apr. 17, 2012), report and recommendation
adopted, 2012 WL 1715308 (S. D. Miss. May 14, 2012)
(affirming petition as moot where petitioner entered a guilty
plea, was sentenced, and released from custody). Furthermore,
Petitioner's request to have the charges against him
dropped and to be released from custody was an attempt
“to abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the orderly
functioning of state judicial processes, ” which is not
available relief through habeas corpus absent special
circumstances that are not present in this case. See
Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 226.
Motion to Dismiss should be granted because the 28 U.S.C.