Chrustowski v. Bishop

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: October 22, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00555
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RENEE A. CHRUSTOWSKI, : Petitioner, v. : Civil Action No. 24-555-CFC ROBERT BISHOP and PHILLIP BISHOP, : Respondents.

MEMORANDUM Pro se petitioner Renee A. Chrustowski (“Petitioner”) has filed a form application titled “Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241” (“Petition). (D.I. 1) Petitioner alleges she is a pretrial detainee, and asserts four claims premised on the alleged “retaliation and discrimination by [her] former employee at USPS, discrimination by Middletown PD, and harass[ment] and assault[] by Clayton PD.” (D.I. 1 at 19 4, 2, □□ 8; D.I. 1-1 at 1) For relief, Petitioner asks “to be relieved of all criminal charges, any pending charges, and court fees.” (D.I 1 at 9 § 15) A federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. As a general rule, a federal district court can only entertain a habeas petition in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, and a petitioner

is not entitled to federal habeas relief unless he has exhausted state remedies for his habeas claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) and (b)(1)(A); see also Rules 1- 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Although a state prisoner can challenge her pre-trial custody on speedy trial grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal court cannot provide habeas review for pre-trial claims if the petitioner is trying to abort her state criminal proceeding, because such adjudication would constitute premature litigation of constitutional defenses in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441-42 (3d Cir. 1975); Braden v. 30 Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973) (noting that habeas corpus review is not available to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a state court conviction, but that, in special circumstances, habeas corpus is the appropriate vehicle by which to demand enforcement of a state’s constitutional obligation to provide a speedy trial). After reviewing the instant Petition, the Court concludes that summary dismissal is appropriate. First, Petitioner is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment. Second, to the extent Petitioner is asking the Court to relieve her of all pending criminal charges, she is improperly attempting to abort a state criminal proceeding. Third, Petitioner's claims — which appear to involve employment retaliation, discrimination, and harassment, as well as retaliation and discrimination by two police departments — do not present issues cognizable on federal habeas review.’ See, e.g., Pierre v. United

'The Court notes that Petitioner has filed numerous civil cases in this Court which seemingly involve the same defendants and identical or similar issues. See, e.g., Chrustowski v. USPS Middletown Post Office, C.A. 23-1027-CFC; Chrustowski v. USPS, C.A. 23-1206-CFC); Chrustowski v. ROA Middletown Post Office et al, C.A. 23-

States, 525 F.2d 933, 935-36 (5" Cir. 1976) (“Simply stated, habeas is not available to review questions unrelated to the cause of detention. Its sole function is to grant relief from unlawful imprisonment or custody[,] and it cannot be used properly for any other purpose.”). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the instant Petition. The Court will also decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Petitioner has failed to make a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 3d Cir. LA.R. 22.2 (2011); United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997). A separate Order will be entered.

Dated: October 22, 2024 Cob, st Lr — j Colm F. Connolly Chief Judge

745-CFC; Chrustowski v. Life House Church, et al, C.A. 24-35-CFC; Chrustowski v. Louis DeJoy et al C.A. 24-37-CFC.