United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
Petitioner brings a pre-trial petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons Petitioner is not entitled to relief, and the petition is summarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rules 1, 4.
When petitioner filed this action, he was a pretrial detainee in two state criminal actions: Missouri v. Johnson, No. 1422-CR02993-01, and Missouri v. Johnson, No. 1422-CR03145-01. Accessed via Missouri Case.net, https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/base/welcome.do. Petitioner alleged that his speedy trial rights were violated, that his public defender refused to file a motion on his behalf, and that the trial court erred when it refused his motion for a new public defender.
In Case No. 1422-CR02993-01, petitioner was found guilty by a jury on April 21, 21)15, of domestic assault in the second degree. His sentencing hearing is set for June 26, 2015. In Case No. 1422-CR03145-01, trial is set for June 8, 2015.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the federal courts have jurisdiction over pretrial habeas petitions. Neville v. Cavanagh , 611 F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1979). "Despite the existence of jurisdiction, however, federal courts are reluctant to grant pre-trial habeas relief." Id. Only when "special circumstances" exist will a federal court find that a pretrial detainee has exhausted state remedies. Id. "In most cases courts will not consider claims that can be raised at trial and in subsequent state proceeding." Blanck v. Waukesha County , 48 F.Supp.2d 859, 860 (D. Wis. 1999).
In this case, petitioner can raise his issues either before trial or on appeal. As a result, special circumstances do not exist for finding that his claims are exhausted, and this action must be dismissed.
Finally, petitioner has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which requires a demonstration "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right." Khaimov v. Crist , 297 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir. 2002) (quotation omitted). Thus, the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ...