United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, 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 the petition.
was arrested on the basis of three separately issued warrants
out of St. Charles County Court on August 18, 2017 by St.
Charles Deputy Sheriff Rackhaus. The charges included driving
while revoked/suspended (felony), failing to comply with a
court order requiring the use of an ignition interlock device
(misdemeanor), and failing to appear on a charge of no
insurance (misdemeanor). See State v. Beezley, Case
Nos. 1711-CR00594, 1711-CR00593 and 1711-CR0001098 (St.
Charles County Circuit Court).
was arraigned on the two misdemeanor charges on August 21,
2017 and bond was set at $650.00 in cash. Petitioner was
arraigned on the felony charge, in Case No. 1711-CR0001098 on
that same date and his bond was set at $10, 000, whereupon
10% was allowed, cash only. Petitioner was incarcerated at
that time in St. Charles County Department of Corrections.
was released from custody on his own recognizance in all
three cases on or about September 29, 2017. However,
petitioner has failed to update the Court's docket has to
his address. Moreover, the Court notes that according to
Missouri.Case.Net, petitioner has failed to appear in all
three cases at his last court date. Accordingly, he currently
has a warrant out for his arrest due to his failure to
appear. See State v. Beezley, Case Nos.
1711-CR00594, 1711-CR00593 and 1711-CR0001098 (St. Charles
County Circuit Court).
filed the instant action on September 14, 2017, asserting
that he had been held for thirty-four (34) days at the time
he filed his petition, which he believes is an overly long
time in the St. Charles County Detention Center for what he
calls “traffic tickets.”
also asserts that he believes the bond levels to be overly
high, and he asserts that the Court and the Detention Center
appear to make money from inmates remaining incarcerated as a
result of high bond amounts.
also makes several conditions of confinement claims against
the Detention Center, but he has not indicated that he is
bringing a civil lawsuit against any individuals at the
Detention Center for alleged violations of his civil rights
as a result of their purported unlawful actions against him
during his incarceration there.
Court has reviewed petitioner's criminal case docket on
Missouri.Case.Net and reiterates that petitioner is not
incarcerated at the present time. See Missouri v.
Cravins, No. 1722-CR1415-01 (City of St. Louis).
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 pretrial 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 ...