United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
TOMMY LEE WHITE, JR. PETITIONER
WARDEN MARY RUSHING, ET AL. RESPONDENTS
P. JORDAN III CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
ask the Court to dismiss Petitioner Tommy Lee White,
Jr.'s Petition for Habeas Corpus Relief . United
States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”)  recommending that
the Court grant Respondents' motion because White failed
to state a claim for relief and failed to exhaust state-court
remedies. Having fully considered White's Objection 
to the R&R, the Court agrees with Judge Ball.
is a pretrial detainee at the Hinds County Detention Center.
In his Petition  and Motion to Amend  his Petition,
White asserts a number of procedural deficiencies in his
criminal case-mostly based on state law. Whether he can state
a claim based on those alleged deficiencies turns in part on
the relief he seeks.
Brown v. Estelle, the Fifth Circuit held that
generally a petitioner may not “abort a state
proceeding or [ ] disrupt the orderly functioning of state
judicial processes” absent special circumstances. 530
F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir. 1976). While a defendant may seek
habeas relief “to force the state to go to trial,
” he may not normally “attempt to dismiss an
indictment or otherwise prevent a prosecution.”
seeks just that. In his own words, White “is not
challenging the delay of the Indictment or speedy trial but
the illegal[ity] of his confinement.” Pet'r's
Obj.  at 8. He therefore seeks an order “dismissing
the alleged charges and releasing the petitioner
immediately.” Pet'r's Mot.  at 4. White thus
describes the very case Brown precludes absent
“special circumstances, ” something he has not
demonstrated. 530 F.2d at 1282. Accordingly, the Court adopts
Judge Ball's R&R over White's Objection.
extent White's Petition can be construed as seeking other
relief, Judge Ball correctly found that White failed to
exhaust his state-court remedies. According to the Fifth
[A]lthough section 2241 establishes jurisdiction in the
federal courts to consider pre-trial habeas corpus petitions,
federal courts should abstain from the exercise of that
jurisdiction if the issues raised . . . may be resolved
either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other
state procedures available to the petitioner.
Dickerson v. State of Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 228
(5th Cir. 1987); see also R&R  at 2. As
Judge Ball noted, White did submit a “Motion to Show
Cause, ” but there is no proof White actually filed it
or that the motion itself would satisfy the exhaustion
requirement. R&R  at 2.
presses the issue again in his Objection, arguing that the
“Motion to Show Cause” had been “present
within Hinds County Circuit Court” for some time.
Pet'r's Obj.  at 2-3. But even assuming White did
file the motion, it would still fall short. As frequently
noted by other courts, pretrial detainees like White are
“required to seek relief from the highest court of the
State.” Singletary v. Adam, No.
1:12CV297-HSO-RHW, 2013 WL 588150, at *1 (S.D.Miss. Feb. 13,
2013) (citing O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S.
838, 840 (1999); D .D. v. White, 650 F.2d 749, 750
(5th Cir. 1981)). White has not shown that he presented his
motion to the trial court, much less the Mississippi Supreme
Court. He therefore fails to demonstrate that he exhausted
final housekeeping matter remains. After Respondents moved to
dismiss, White filed a “Motion to Proceed and
Modify-Amend” . Judge Ball construed the submission
as White's response to the dispositive motion.
See R&R  at 1. The Court agrees with that
conclusion. But even if White truly sought leave to amend,
the amendment would be futile because it confirms that he
seeks the relief Brown forecloses and otherwise
fails to establish that he exhausted his claims. Accordingly,
White's Motion  is denied.
therefore, ordered that the Report and Recommendation  of
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball is adopted as
the opinion of this Court. Respondents' Motion to Dismiss
 is granted, and this case is dismissed without prejudice
for failure to exhaust. A separate judgment will be entered
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.