Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beezley v. Crawford

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

November 6, 2017

SCOTT BEEZLEY, Petitioner,
v.
LARRY CRAWFORD, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JEAN C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before 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.

         Background

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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.

         Petitioner 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).

         Petitioner 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.”

         Petitioner 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.

         Petitioner 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.

         The 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).

         Discussion

         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 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).

         Courts 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 Cir. 1995).

         The grounds raised by petitioner do not constitute the “special circumstances” required for a finding that he has ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.