Hill v. Bevier

E.D. Michigan

Hill v. Bevier

DecidedNovember 15, 2021

Docket2:21-cv-12499

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Bevier (Hill v. Bevier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Bevier, (E.D. Mich. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

BENJAMIN HILL, Case No. 2:21-cv-12499 Petitioner, HONORABLE STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III v.

TROY BEVIER,

Respondent. __________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [1], DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner Benjamin Hill—a pretrial detainee at the Lenawee County Jail in Southern Michigan—filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF 1. Because of the procedural posture of the state criminal proceedings, the Court will dismiss the petition. Federal habeas relief is premature. BACKGROUND Petitioner is charged in state court with three counts of fourth degree criminal sexual conduct. Id. at 2. Petitioner submitted a document along with the petition that appears to show that Petitioner pleaded guilty to at least some of the counts during Petitioner's June 2, 2021 arraignment. Id. But the document listed Petitioner's next court date as November 17, 2021 and that the purposes of the court date are "pre- trial" matters. Id. The Court independently confirmed that Petitioner is scheduled to have two "pretrial hearing[s]" on November 17, 2021 in Lenawee County Circuit Court and that the hearings are for the cases listed on the document that Petitioner submitted. See Exhibit 1; ECF 1, PgID 2. Based on the document and the state court's docket, see Exhibit 1; ECF 1, PgID 2, Petitioner is either a pretrial detainee who has

not been convicted or an inmate who has pleaded guilty to and is awaiting sentencing on at least some of the charged offenses. One page of the petition states that Petitioner believes a "malicious prosecution" violated Petitioner's due process and equal protection rights and another discusses a brief recitation of case law about deficient warrants. Id. at 1, 4. Petitioner did not explain whether there was an arrest or search warrant issued in the state court case or what was malicious about the prosecution that violated due process or

equal protection principles. See generally id. Other than the document and pages referenced above, Plaintiff appears to have attached several documents unrelated to the actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See generally ECF 1. For example, one document is a Freedom of Information Act request sent to the Lenawee County Jail in October 2021, id. at 3, and another relates to a civil lawsuit Petitioner filed in state court associated with injuries

suffered while confined in the Lenawee County Jail, id. at 5. Neither document appears related to Petitioner's state court criminal proceeding, and Petitioner does not appear to reassert the civil claims from the state court lawsuit in federal court through the petition. The last two documents are letters from Petitioner to the Lenawee County Prosecutor. Id. at 6–8. The first letter detailed an alleged incident of sexual harassment against Petitioner that apparently resulted in Petitioner's arrest because Petitioner connected the incident to the "malicious prosecution." Id. at 6–7. Petitioner did not provide a reason for the arrest. See generally id. The second letter discussed

an incident in which Petitioner was allegedly assaulted by a woman, with a request that an investigation be launched against the woman. Id. at 8. LEGAL STANDARD If a habeas petitioner has not yet been convicted, Section 2241 is the proper vehicle for challenging the state court proceedings because the Sixth Circuit has "long recognized that pretrial detainees pursue habeas relief [] under § 2241." Phillips v. Court of Common Pleas, Hamilton Cnty., Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2012).

Relief can only be sought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when the petitioner is "in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court" rather than "in custody pursuant to an indictment." Id. (emphasis in original) (internal quotation and citation omitted). If a petitioner has been convicted in a state court but files for habeas relief under § 2241, courts must still apply the restrictions on habeas relief associated with § 2254. Rittenberry v. Morgan, 468 F.3d 331, 337–38 (6th Cir. 2006) ("[T]here is really only a

single 'gate' to federal habeas relief from state custody—through the general jurisdictional grant in § 2241—although all petitions seeking relief from state court convictions are more specifically filed 'under section 2254' as well, and are subject to its restrictions, as well as those of § 2244(b).") (cleaned up). Because Petitioner might be either a pretrial detainee or convicted and awaiting sentencing, the Court will analyze the petition as if both circumstances exist. First, the Court turns to the law surrounding pretrial habeas petitions challenging state criminal proceedings. In general, under the abstention doctrine federal courts should not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings "except

under extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); see also In re Justices of Sup. Ct. Dept. of Mass. Trial Ct., 218 F.3d 11, 17–18 (1st Cir. 2000) (discussing approvingly the application of abstention principles to pretrial habeas relief from a state proceeding). Courts will apply the abstention doctrine when there is "an ongoing state judicial proceeding; . . . the proceeding[] implicate[s] important state interests; and . . . there [is] an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding[] to raise

constitutional challenges." Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Federal courts routinely deny pretrial requests for habeas relief from state court proceedings unless there "is a claim that [the] state prosecution will violate the Double Jeopardy Clause" or there are claims related to the petitioner's right to a speedy trial. Carman v. Pinkney, No. 1:19 CV 2101, 2020 WL 224572, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 25, 2020) (Gaughan, C.J.).

Second, the Court turns to the law surrounding habeas petitions submitted by convicted petitioners when the state court has yet to impose a sentence. Federal courts must not grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus "unless the petitioner has exhausted available state court remedies, there is an absence of available state corrective process, or circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the petitioner's rights." Turner v. Bagley, 401 F.3d 718, 724 (6th Cir. 2005) (citing § 2254 (b) and (c)). A petitioner confined pursuant to a Michigan conviction must raise each issue in both the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court before seeking federal habeas corpus relief in order to satisfy the

exhaustion requirement. Hafley v. Sowders, 902 F.2d 480, 483 (6th Cir. 1990) (quoting Winegar v. Corr. Dep't, 435 F. Supp. 285, 289 (W.D. Mich. 1977)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI