Johnson v. Commonwealth of Virginia

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: March 5, 2024
• Docket: 7:24-cv-00064
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

March 05, 2024 LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT st. Beeson □□ FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ARTIS DENARD JOHNSON, ) Petitioner, ) Case No. 7:24-cv-00064 By: Michael F. Urbanski COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ) Chief United States District Judge Respondent. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Artis Denard Johnson, a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which he challenges the amount of the bond set in a pending criminal case. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. I. Background According to the petition and state court records available online, Johnson is currently awaiting trial on charges brought against him in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County. He seeks to challenge the amount of bond set by the Circuit Court on September 15, 2023. He alleges that he is an “indigent offender” and that he is being deprived of “liberty” and “equal protections of the laws” as a result of the “[e]xcessive bail” amount. Pet., ECF No. 1, at 2. II. Discussion The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized that a state pretrial detainee can file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See United States v. Tootle, 65 F.3d 381, 383 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 P.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 956 (1987)). However, a petitioner is generally required to exhaust state court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief. Dickerson, 816

F.2d at 229; see also Johnson v. Florida, 32 F.4th 1092, 1095–96 (11th Cir. 2022) (“It is by now well established that a district court may not grant a § 2241 petition unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Wilson v.

Jones, 430 F.3d 1113, 1118 (10th Cir. 2005) (“A habeas petitioner seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is generally required to exhaust state remedies.”). “Although the text of § 2241 imposes no exhaustion requirement on petitioners seeking pretrial federal habeas relief, courts have grafted an exhaustion requirement onto § 2241, which is ‘judicially crafted on federalism grounds in order to protect the state court’s opportunity to confront and resolve initially any constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions as well as to limit federal interference in

the state adjudicatory process.’” Hartfield v. Osborne, 808 F.3d 1066, 1073 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a petitioner must present his claim to the state’s highest court. Johnson, 32 F.4th at 1096. In this case, Johnson acknowledges that he has not appealed the bond decision to a higher state court, as permitted under Virginia law. See Pet. at 3, 7–8; see also Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-124 (“Any bail decision made by a judge of a court may be appealed successively by the

person to the next higher court, up to and including the Supreme Court of Virginia, where permitted by law.”). Consequently, it is clear from the petition that his claims are unexhausted. Moreover, Johnson does not suggest that he “has no adequate remedy such that exhaustion would be futile.” Wilson, 430 F.3d at 1118. Nor does he identify any “extraordinary circumstances” that would allow him to assert his constitutional claims without first exhausting available state court remedies. See Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 443 (3d Cir.

1975) (explaining that a federal court should not exercise habeas jurisdiction at the pretrial stage in the absence of exhaustion “unless extraordinary circumstances are present’). Therefore, the court concludes that Johnson’s petition must be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Because “the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court,” Johnson ts required to obtain a certificate of appealability in order to appeal the dismissal of his § 2241 petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). When a district court dismisses a habeas petition on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can “demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.”’ Rose v. Lee, 252 P.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Because Johnson has not met this standard, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. III. Conclusion For the reasons stated herein, the court DISMISSES Johnson’s petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: March 5, 2024 Vy Sat 5024.03.05 15.1955 65°00" Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge