Lohnes v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, N.D. Indiana
• Decided: April 22, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00117
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION

JAMES ANDREW LOHNES,

Petitioner,

v. CAUSE NO.: 2:20-CV-117-TLS-JPK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Respondents.

OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court sua sponte on an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §] 2241 [ECF No. 1] filed by James Andrew Lohnes, a prisoner without a lawyer. Because his petition suggested that he was serving a state court conviction, Lohnes was advised, in an Order denying emergency relief [ECF No. 4], that the only remedy available to him in federal court was a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dudgeon v. Frank, 2006 WL 3754796 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 7, 2006). Lohnes was provided with a copy of this court’s form for petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and granted an opportunity to file an amended petition. He has now filed an Amended Petition [ECF No. 6]. According to the Amended Petition, Lohnes is a pre-trial detainee awaiting sentencing. “The appropriate vehicle for a state pre-trial detainee to challenge his detention is § 2241.” Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015). However, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), generally “requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state proceedings to enforce a state’s criminal laws . . . .” Sweeney v. Bartow, 612 F.3d 571, 573 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 37). Two recognized exceptions are speedy trial and double jeopardy claims. Id. Lohnes is not raising either a speedy trial claim or a double jeopardy claim. Rather, he alleges that he should be released because he suffers from health conditions that place him at high risk of complications if he contracts Covid-19. Therefore, the court must abstain pursuant to Younger. Sweeney, 612 F.3d at 573 (noting that for claims other than speedy trial or double jeopardy, “[i]t makes no difference [whether] the petitioner has exhausted the

state remedies that he could invoke” because Younger requires abstention.). For these reasons, Lohnes’ Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus [ECF No. 6] is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. SO ORDERED on April 22, 2020. s/ Theresa L. Springmann CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT