United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Richardo Leodoro Urbina is a federal pre-trial detainee
currently confined in the Eastern District of Michigan at the
Federal Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan. Urbina
is awaiting trial in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan, Case Number 18-cr-00051.
March 11, 2019, Urbina filed a pro se petition for a
writ of habeas corpus in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. (See ECF #1.) In the petition, Urbina
seeks dismissal of the charges against him and release from
custody. (See id.) Because Urbina needs to first
raise his claims in his pending criminal action, and not in
this separately-filed habeas action, the Court
DISMISSES Urbina's petition
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.
criminal charges under which Urbina is being held arose out
of a child exploitation taskforce operated jointly by the FBI
and state and local authorities. A Kent County, Michigan,
Sheriff's detective and member of that taskforce arrested
Urbina on state charges of sex trafficking on November 30,
2017. Following Urbina's arrest, he was held in the Kent
County Jail until March 7, 2018. On that date, the FBI
arrested Urbina and took him into federal custody pursuant to
an indictment issued by a federal grand jury on March 6,
2018. In the federal criminal action, Urbina was charged with
three counts each of sex trafficking of a minor and
distribution of cocaine. See United States v.
Urbina, W.D. Mich. No. 18-cr-00051. Following
Urbina's arrest on federal charges, Urbina's state
charges were dismissed.
Urbina's habeas petition, he asserts that his state court
arrest was a “subterfuge” and a
“ruse” that permitted the federal government to
hold him in custody for more time than is permitted under the
Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. (Pet., ECF #1.)
Urbina insists that the charges against him should therefore
be dismissed and that he should be released from custody.
federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas
petition brought under section 2241 if it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
See McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994);
Carson v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1999);
Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Here, Urbina is
plainly not entitled to habeas relief at this time.
federal pre-trial detainee seeks habeas relief under section
2241 on a claim that “would be dispositive of the
underlying criminal charges, ” the claim “must be
exhausted at trial and on appeal before habeas corpus relief
is available.” Sandles v. Hemingway, 22
Fed.Appx. 557 (6th Cir. 2001) (citations omitted); see
also Horning v. Seifart, 107 F.3d 11 (TABLE), 1997 WL
58620 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding that petition brought by a
pre-trial detainee under section 2241 was properly dismissed
because the “remedy” under the statute
“cannot be invoked to raise defenses to a pending
federal criminal prosecution.”); Flowers v.
Edwards, 780 F.2d 1020 (TABLE), 1985 WL 13977 (6th Cir.
1985) (holding that federal pre-trial detainee may not obtain
relief under section 2241 unless, among other things, he has
exhausted his remedies). A claim by a federal pre-trial
detainee seeking dismissal of the charges against him based
upon an alleged violation of the Speedy Trial Act would be
dispositive of the criminal case against him. Thus, the claim
must be exhausted in the underlying criminal case before it
may be asserted in a habeas proceeding under section 2241.
habeas petition under section 2241 is not the appropriate
avenue for Urbina to raise, at this time, his claims under
the Speedy Trial Act. Instead, Urbina should first exhaust
these claims in his pending criminal action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
for all of the reasons stated above, the Court
DISMISSES Urbina's petition for a writ
of habeas corpus (ECF #1) WITHOUT PREJUDICE
because it is premature.
Court notes that a certificate of appealability is not needed
to appeal the dismissal of a habeas petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Witham v. United
States, 355 F.3d 501, 504 (6th Cir. 2004). Accordingly,
Urbina need not request one from this Court nor the Sixth
Circuit should he seek to appeal this decision.
IS SO ORDERED.
hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was
served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on April 15,