Gist-Holden v. United States

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: November 3, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00340
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION HAILEY GIST-HOLDEN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) NO. 2:21CV340-PPS/JEM ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. ) OPINION AND ORDER Acting without a lawyer, Hailey Gist-Holden has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §2241. [DE 1.] The petition (see ¶6) says it is challenging Gist-Holden’s on-going prosecution in Case No. 2:21CR71, specifically the legality of his detention and the evidence obtained against him. In the criminal case, Gist-Holden is charged with bank robbery and with using a firearm during the bank robbery, causing the death of Richard Castellana. In the §2241 petition, Gist-Holden enumerates four grounds for relief: violation of his right to counsel when he was questioned at two county jails and by the FBI, an involuntary waiver of Miranda rights, and two Fourth Amendment issues about the seizure of evidence. [DE 1 at ¶13.] The relief Gist-Holden seeks is “immediate release and dismissal of any indictments and remaining criminal complaints.” [Id. at ¶15.] A habeas petition under §2241, which opens a separate civil case , is not a proper vehicle for making the arguments Gist-Holden asserts in this proceeding parallel to his pending prosecution. Instead, “[t]o be eligible for habeas corpus relief under §2241, a federal pretrial detainee must first exhaust other available remedies,” meaning he must make his arguments within the criminal case. Alden v. Kellerman, 224 Fed.Appx. 545, 547 (7th Cir. 2007). In support of this long-established principle, Alden cites Supreme

Court cases from 1918 and 1905 -– Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-92 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial”), and Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547, 550-51 (1905) (vacating order granting habeas relief when pretrial detainees filed habeas petitions before

“invok[ing] the action of the Circuit Court upon the sufficiency of the indictment by a motion to quash or otherwise”). The Seventh Circuit has also held that “[a] federal detainee’s request for release pending trial can be considered under only the Bail Reform Act, and not a §2241 petition.” Frederickson v. Terrill, 957 F.3d 1379, 1380 (7th Cir. 2020).

Applying these long-established principles, I conclude that Gist-Holden cannot demonstrate any right to relief based on his pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to §2241, which will be denied. Challenges to the criminal charges in Case No. 2:21CR71 should be made there, and I note that Gist-Holden there represents himself pro se and can freely address his arguments to the court in the proper context.

2 ACCORDINGLY: Hailey Gist-Holden’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241 [DE 1] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. ENTERED: November 3, 2021. /s/ Philip P. Simon PHILIP P. SIMON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT