United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
L. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is petitioner's application for writ of habeas
corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. After
review of the application for writ of habeas corpus, the
Court will deny and dismiss this action.
15, 2016, a grand jury indicted petitioner in Missouri State
Court on ten Class C and D felonies: Assault in the
2nd Degree; two counts of Leaving the Scene of a
Motor Vehicle Accident; Tampering with a Motor Vehicle in the
1st Degree; two counts of Resisting
Arrest/Detention/Stop by Fleeing; Possession of a Controlled
Substance; and three counts of Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm. Missouri v. Parker, No. 16SL-CR03375-01
(City of St. Louis).
filed the instant action on October 30, 2017, asserting that
his right to speedy trial had been violated. He seeks an
order from this Court dismissing his state criminal charges.
In his handwritten and pro se petition, petitioner also
states that he has been incarcerated pursuant to a warrant
for his arrest since May of 2016. He claims that the DNA swab
taken from him during the course of his arrest was a
violation of his civil rights.Last, petitioner asserts that he
believes Brady violations are occurring in his
criminal action in that the prosecutor is not turning over
all the exculpatory evidence she has in her possession.
Court has reviewed petitioner's criminal case docket on
Missouri.Case.Net and found that petitioner is represented in
his state criminal case by a Missouri Public Defender.
See Missouri v. Parker, No. 16SL-CR03375-01 (City of
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).
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);
Blanck, 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 can be
adequately raised with his state criminal counsel,
at his criminal trial and in his subsequent state
Court has reviewed petitioner's state criminal docket via
Mo.Case.Net and found that although he has raised a pro se
"motion to dismiss his criminal action for speedy trial,
" pursuant to Mo.Rev.Stat. § 545.780 on April 24,
2017, with the City of St. Louis, his motion was not
filed through his attorney.
his counsel, in a hearing held on October 6, 2017, requested
a continuance of the trial date in order to look into
additional discovery on behalf of petitioner. When a criminal
defendant or his counsel is responsible for the delays in
trial, the defendant, by law, is not denied his right to
speedy trial. State v. Adams, 691 S.W.2d 432
(Mo.Ct.App.1985); State v. Cannon, 692
S.W.2d 357 (Mo.Ct.App.1985); State v. Daly,
731 S.W.2d 315 (Mo.Ct.App.1987); State v.
Clark, 723 S.W.2d 17 (Mo.Ct.App.1986). As a
result, the Court will deny and dismiss the petition at this
time, without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED AND DISMISSED.
IS HEREBY ORDERED that no certificate of