Abdulkarim v. Clark County Detention Center

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: October 21, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01241
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * *

9 HABIB ABDULKARIM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01241-ART-NJK

10 Petitioner, Order Dismissing Petition v. 11 CLARK COUNTY DETENTION 12 CENTER, et al.,

13 Respondents.

14 In his original pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas 15 corpus Habib Abdulkarim raised a claim of excessive bail. (ECF No. 4.) Because 16 the claim appeared unexhausted, the court directed Abdulkarim to show cause 17 and file such proof as he may have to demonstrate that he exhausted his claim. 18 (ECF No. 3.) Instead, Abdulkarim filed an amended petition. (ECF No. 9.) The 19 amended petition asserts that the state district court is violating his Sixth 20 Amendment right to a speedy trial. He indicates on the face of the petition that 21 he has not raised this claim in state court. Thus, he has not exhausted 22 available state court remedies. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of 23 Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973) (holding that pretrial detainee in state 24 custody must exhaust available state court remedies before seeking federal 25 habeas review of the detainee’s constitutional claim); Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 26 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2018)(observing that pretrial detainee had properly 27 ' exhausted his state court remedies before filing federal petition for a writ of 2 habeas corpus). Here it appears that from Abdulkarim’s amended petition that he and his ‘ counsel disagree about whether to pursue pretrial habeas relief in state court. (See ECF No. at 2-3.) The court is not inclined to consider Abdulkarim’s habeas 6 claim prior to giving the Nevada courts an opportunity to redress any violation of Abdulkarim’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 8 491 (observing that pretrial detainee seeking to enforce right to speedy trial had 9 exhausted state court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief). "0 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without " prejudice. "2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find the court’s dismissal of this action for failure to " state a cognizable claim to be debatable or incorrect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 17 18 DATED: 21 October 2022. jlosed den rf Mase ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28