United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is petitioner's motion for writ of mandamus, as
well as his motion for leave to allow his handwritten writ of
mandamus to stand as an amended § 2241 petition. At
petitioner's insistence, the Court will treat the writ of
mandamus filed on September 22, 2017 as an amended §
2241 application for writ of habeas corpus relative to his
speedy trial claims in his underlying state criminal action.
After review of the amended § 2241 application for writ
of habeas corpus, the Court will deny and dismiss this
February 7, 2016, a grand jury indicted petitioner in
Missouri State Court on one count of first-degree statutory
rape. Missouri v. Robinson, No. 1622-CR00618-01
(City of St. Louis). Petitioner filed the instant action on
June 1, 2017, asserting that his right to speedy trial had
been violated. He sought an order from this Court dismissing
his state criminal charges. Petitioner instantaneously filed
a motion for preliminary injunction, asserting that his right
to receive adequate medical care had been denied.
17, 2017, the Court, by Memorandum and Order, told petitioner
that he was required to amend his § 2241 petition on a
court-provided form. Petitioner was also told that his denial
of medical care claims were not cognizable in federal habeas
corpus proceedings brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Thus, petitioner was told that his motion for preliminary
injunction was denied and he was provided with a court-form
for filing a separate action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Petitioner was given twenty-one (21) days to file his
amended § 2241 petition alleging violations of the
speedy trial doctrine. He was also told to pay the $5 filing
fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this
petitioner paid the $5 filing fee, he failed to file his
amended § 2241 petition in a timely manner. As such,
this action was dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(b), for failure to comply with a Court Order, on
August 28, 2017.
dismissal of this action, petitioner filed several letters to
the Court, as well as several post-dismissal motions. In his
post-dismissal motions, petitioner asserted that after he was
told to amend his petition, he spent time in the hospital for
heart issues and was prevented from filing an amended
petition in a timely manner. The Court found that good cause
was shown by petitioner and reopened the present matter.
Petitioner was then ordered to amend his § 2241 action
on a court-provided form and given twenty-one (21) days to
amend his petition.
than file his claims on a § 2241 court-form, petitioner
filed a hand-written document titled "Motion to Compel
Writ of Mandamus As for Good Cause Petitioner, Defendant,
Detainee, Cites and States As Follows." In essence,
petitioner seeks to file a handwritten § 2241 habeas
petition, asserting that his right to speedy trial has been
violated in his state criminal matter. Petitioner has also
filed a motion for hearing on his application for habeas
application for writ of habeas corpus, or application for
mandamus, states in a conclusory manner that he has been
denied the right to speedy trial in his state criminal
alleges that Mo.Rev.Stat.§ 545.780 has been denied to
him, and his "constitutional rights" to speedy
trial have been denied under the 6th Amendment.
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." Blanch v.
Waukesha County, 48 F.Supp.2d 859, 860 (D. Wis. 1999).
have found that "special circumstances" existed
where double jeopardy was at issue or where a speedy trial
claim was raised. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court, 410 U.S. 484, 488 (1973) (speedy trial);
Blanch, 48 F.Supp.2d at 860 (double jeopardy).
However, a petition must contain enough facts to state a
claim as a matter of law and must not be merely conclusory.
Frey v. City of Herculaneum, 44 F.3d 667, 671 (8th
grounds raised by petitioner do not constitute the
"special circumstances" required for a finding that
he has exhausted his available state remedies. Petitioner's
allegations are conclusory and do not contain any facts,
which if proved, would demonstrate that he has been deprived
of the right to a speedy trial. Petitioner has failed to
include enough facts to allow the Court to evaluate his
conclusory "speedy trial" allegations, and most
importantly, the claims raised by petitioner ...