Cunningham v. United States

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: March 20, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-05165
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 FILED IN THE 4 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mar 20, 2023 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AARON JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, No. 4:22-CV-05165-MKD 8 Petitioner, ORDER TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER 9 vs. SUMMARILY DISMISSING ACTION 10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 15, 16 11 Respondent.

12 Petitioner, a federal pretrial detainee1 currently confined at Spokane County 13 Jail, filed this pro se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 14 Respondent has not been served. 15 Petitioner seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 10, 14. An 16 officer at the Benton County Jail has supplied “a certificate . . . showing the 17 amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in any account in the 18

19 1 Petitioner’s federal criminal case, United States v. Cunningham, No. 2:22-cr- 20 00061-RMP, is still pending. 1 institution,” as required by Rule 3(a)(2), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 2 the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule”)2. ECF No. 14 at 2. Because it

3 appears that Petitioner lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this action, his request to 4 proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 10, is granted and this action may proceed 5 without payment of the filing fee.

6 By this action, Petitioner seeks to challenge pending federal criminal 7 proceedings in United States v. Cunningham, Case No. 2:22-cr-00061-RMP. See 8 ECF No. 1. at 2. Petitioner is represented by counsel in his pending criminal case. 9 Case No. 2:22-cr-00061-RMP, ECF Nos. 11, 18. Petitioner was arraigned on

10 September 15, 2022. Case No. 2:22-cr-00061-RMP, ECF No. 16 at 1. The United 11 States moved for Petitioner’s detention, and Petitioner waived his right to a 12 detention hearing that same day. Case No. 2:22-cr-00061-RMP, ECF Nos. 9, 16 at

13 1. However, Petitioner reserved the right to revisit the issue should his 14 circumstances change. Case No. 2:22-cr-00061-RMP, ECF No. 16 at 1. Petitioner 15 has not sought to revisit his release status in the pending criminal matter. Instead, 16 Petitioner seeks his release from pretrial detention through the instant petition. See

17 18

19 2 Habeas Rule 1(b) allows a district court to “apply any or all of these rules to a 20 habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a). Id. 1 ECF No. 1. He also seeks $100,000,000.00 in “gold bullion” as a remedy. ECF 2 No. 1 at 7.

3 As an initial matter, monetary damages are not an available remedy in the 4 federal habeas corpus context. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 646 (2004) 5 (noting that “damages are not an available habeas remedy”); cf. Heck v. Humphrey,

6 512 U.S. 477, 477 (1994) (holding a plaintiff bringing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 7 can recover damages for unlawful imprisonment so long as they “prove that the 8 conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive 9 order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination,

10 or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus”). 11 In addition, it well established that a criminal defendant cannot use a petition 12 for writ of habeas corpus to challenge the district court’s orders or assert defenses

13 in a pending federal criminal prosecution. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 14 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in 15 criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus 16 should not be granted in advance of a trial.”); see Riggins v. United States, 199

17 U.S. 547 (1905). Moreover, Petitioner has retained the right to revisit his detention 18 in his criminal case and may have an additional non-extraordinary remedy in 19 seeking review of the detention order under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). Therefore,

20 1 Petitioner’s challenges to the district court’s actions in his federal criminal 2 prosecution must be dismissed.

3 Furthermore, the Court declines to interfere with another judge’s assigned 4 case. See Mullis v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1393 (9th 5 Cir. 1987) (“[a] district court lacks authority to issue a writ of mandamus to

6 another district court.”). “It would be inappropriate for this Court to issue any 7 order which could affect or interfere with another judge’s handling of a case on his 8 or her docket.” Al-Ansi v. Obama, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D. D.C. 2009); 9 Delgrosso v. Hemingway, No. 22-10158, 2023 WL 319920, at *4 (E.D. Mich. Jan.

10 19, 2023) (district court declining to vacate a separate district’s orders and 11 judgement); Muhammad v. Morrison, No. 2:21-CV-12238-TGB-EAS, 2021 WL 12 5873007, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2021) (district court declining to consider

13 duplicative filing that was previously before another judge in the same district). 14 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s petition is summarily denied. 15 Petitioner must properly pursue these issues in his pending criminal case before the 16 trial court.

17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 18 1. The habeas corpus petition, ECF No. 1, is summarily DISMISSED 19 WITH PREJUDICE.

20 1 2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot and all pending hearings 2 are STRICKEN.

3 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE 4 the file. 5 4. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal

6 from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon 7 which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. 8 P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order

10 and provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address. 11 DATED March 20, 2023.

12 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19