Washburn v. Barnwell County General Sessions

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-02773
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Joshua D. Washburn, ) C/A No.: 1:25-2773-MGL-SVH ) Petitioner, ) vs. ) ) REPORT AND Barnwell County General Sessions ) RECOMMENDATION and Barnwell County Sheriff’s ) Department, ) ) Respondents. )

Joshua D. Washburn (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the petition. I. Procedural and Factual Background Petitioner filed this action on April 2, 2025, indicating he was a pretrial detainee at Barnwell County Detention Center. [ECF No. 1]. Petitioner is challenging many aspects of his criminal case. In his amended petition filed April 28, 2025, he alleges he “was being held against his will by the Barnwell County Sheriff’s Department (State Authorities) in pre-trial detention for 60 days).” [ECF No. 7 at 1]. II. Discussion A. Standard of Review

Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of the petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Court,1 the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110

Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a

potentially meritorious case. , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which a pro se party could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of

liberal construction does not mean the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. , 901 F.2d 387, 390–91 (4th Cir. 1990).

1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. Rule 1(b). B. Analysis Pretrial petitions for habeas corpus are properly brought under 28

U.S.C. § 2241, “which applies to persons in custody regardless of whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of the present status of the case pending against him.” , 65 F.3d 381, 383 (4th Cir. 1995) (quoting , 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987)). It

is unclear if Petitioner remains in custody, as the amended petition states he “is already released from custody” but he has failed to file a notice of change of address.2 As an initial matter, if Petitioner is no longer in custody, the court does not have jurisdiction over the petition pursuant to § 2241.

, Case No. 1:24-3332- DCN-MGB, 2025 WL 227783 (4th Cir. Jan. 17, 2025) (finding a § 2241 appeal moot when the charges against Petitioner were nolle prosequied and he was released from custody). However, out of an abundance of caution, the court

analyzes his petition as if he remains in custody. Federal habeas relief is available under § 2241 only if exceptional circumstances justify the provision of federal review. , 816 F.2d at 227. In , 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held a

federal court should not equitably interfere with state criminal proceedings

2 Petitioner was directed to keep the court apprised of his address in the undersigned’s April 3, 2025 order. [ECF No. 4]. “except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances.” , 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996). The Court noted courts of

equity should not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief. , 401 U.S. at 43–44 (citation omitted). From and its progeny, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has culled the following test to determine

when abstention is appropriate: “(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.”

, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing , 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Petitioner alleges he is (or was) detained on pending state charges. The second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court has noted “the

States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” , 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). The Fourth Circuit has addressed the third

criterion in noting “‘that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights.’” , 75 F.3d at 904 (quoting , 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)). Petitioner can pursue his claims related to his counsel in state court. Accordingly, Petitioner’s petition is subject to summary dismissal. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 48-44. III. Conclusion and Recommendation Petitioner has failed to allege sufficient facts to meet the Younger test, Accordingly, the undersigned recommends the district court dismiss this action with prejudice.® IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. PP Ut Slalger April 30, 2025 Shiva V. Hodges Columbia, South Carolina United States Magistrate Judge The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

3 The undersigned recommends dismissal without leave to amend because any attempt to cure the deficiencies in the complaint would be futile for the reasons stated herein. See Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc’y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 624 (4th Cir. 2015).

Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation

The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” , 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).

Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:

Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court 901 Richland Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); , 474 U.S. 140 (1985); , 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); , 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).