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 relative to
his speedy trial claims in his underlying state criminal
action. After review of the § 2241 application for writ
of habeas corpus, the Court will deny and dismiss this action
as a result of petitioner's failure to fully exhaust his
September 8, 2016, the Circuit Attorney in St. Louis City
filed a criminal complaint against petitioner asserting that
on or about August 27, 2016, he had committed felony
kidnapping, rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second
degree, domestic assault in the second degree and domestic
assault in the third degree. State v. Burgess, No.
1622-CR03886-01 (22nd Judicial Circuit, City of
jury indictment was filed against petitioner on October 18,
2016, bringing the same five counts against petitioner and
charging petitioner as a prior and persistent offender.
Id. Bond was set at $100, 000, cash only, by the
Honorable Jimmie M. Edwards. Id. Petitioner was
remanded to custody awaiting trial on the matter, and he was
assigned counsel from the Missouri State Public
about November 17, 2016, petitioner filed a pro se motion
"for request of right to a speedy trial" pursuant
to Missouri Revised Statute § 545.780. In his motion,
petitioner asserted that his liberty interest was being
threatened by a lengthy incarceration, and he wished for the
matter to be set for trial within "180 days" of his
request. The prosecutor's office filed a memorandum with
the Court requesting that the case be assigned to a
"special docket" as a result of petitioner's
request for "speedy trial" on November 28, 2016.
January 25, 2017, petitioner's counsel filed a motion for
bond reduction, asserting that the cash only bond of $100,
000 was greatly beyond petitioner's financial capacity
and higher than bonds normally set for the type of crimes
charged in petitioner's indictment. The matter was heard
on February 2, 2017, by the Honorable Michael F. Stelzer, and
the motion to reduce the bond was denied. Id.
were held by Judge Stelzer on April 6, 2017 and May 18, 2017
relating to petitioner's speedy trial request. At each
hearing, the trial date had to be continued as a result of
ongoing discovery in petitioner's criminal action. For
example, on June 1, 2017, petitioner's counsel filed a
list of discovery still required in order to defend
petitioner in his criminal proceedings. Petitioner's
counsel noticed a deposition to be taken on October 4, 2017.
And on December 1, 2017, both the prosecutor and
petitioner's counsel filed a joint motion to continue the
matter from the December 11, 2017 trial docket as a result of
defense counsel's request for additional DNA discovery.
criminal action is currently set for trial on February 5,
2018 in Division 16 in the Carnahan Courthouse.
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
application for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner asserts two grounds for
relief. He first asserts that he has been denied a right to
speedy trial in his state court ...