United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS [DKT. NO. 1], DENYING THE MOTION
FOR IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION AND STAYING EXTRADITION [DKT. NO.
3], AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Page Hood, Chief Judge
Lance Adam Goldman, currently in the custody of the Michigan
Department of Corrections, has filed a pro se
petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his
extradition to Florida, pursuant to the Interstate Agreement
on Detainers. After reviewing the petition, it appears that
Goldman has not exhausted his state court remedies, which a
prisoner must do before applying to the federal courts for
habeas corpus relief. Therefore, under Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court will dismiss the
petition without prejudice and deny his motion for a stay.
The Court also denies a certificate of appealability.
Goldman asserts that the Michigan Department of Corrections
issued him a “Notice of Detainer” regarding
charges pending in the state of Florida. Petitioner did not
provide the Court a copy of the notice. The petition does
include copies of an Affidavit dated February 3, 2017, from
the Polk County, Florida, Sheriff's Office; and a
charging document from the same county dated September 25,
2017. (Pet. at 6-9, 10-12, Docket No. 1, PageID 6-9, 10-12.)
Petitioner was charged on three counts each of
“executing a scheme to defraud on a financial
institution” and “grand theft.”
(Id. at 10.)
probable cause determination has been made by Florida, nor
have the governors of the respective states granted
extradition. (Id. at 2.) Yet Petitioner asserts that
Michigan has “okayed” Florida to extradite him in
violation of his rights under the IAD. (Id. at 3.)
disputes that he is the person named in the affidavit.
(Id. at 2-3.) He acknowledges that the date of birth
on the affidavit matches his own but that other identifying
details are incorrect. Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas
corpus and an order staying his extradition to Florida.
(Id. at 4.) It appears that Goldman's first
challenge to the pending extradition is this federal habeas
petition. Petitioner provides no indication that he attempted
to obtain relief from the authorities of Michigan or Florida.
receipt of a habeas corpus petition, a federal court must
“promptly examine [the] petition to determine ‘if
it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any
exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief.'” Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393,
396 n. 2 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts). “Federal courts are authorized to dismiss
summarily any habeas petition that appears legally
insufficient on its face, ” McFarland v.
Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); or if it does not set
forth facts that give rise to a cause of action under federal
law. See Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F.Supp.2d 790, 796
(E.D. Mich. 2001). No. response to a habeas petition
“is necessary when the petition is frivolous, or
obviously lack[s] merit, or where . . . the necessary facts
can be determined from the petition itself without need for
consideration of a return.” Allen v. Perini,
424 F.2d 134, 140 (6th Cir.1970); see also 28
U.S.C.A. § 2243.
2241, Title 28 United States Code confers upon federal courts
jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions filed by
pretrial detainees, which applies to Goldman because of the
pending charges in the State of Florida. Norton v.
Parke, 892 F.2d 476, 478 n.5 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing
Atkins v. People of the State of Michigan, 644 F.2d
543, 546 (6th Cir.1981)). Section 2241 jurisdiction is also
proper here because Petitioner seeks to prevent his
extradition by Michigan to Florida; he disputes the untried
charges and challenges potential future custody by the latter
state. See Gilmore v. Ebbert, 895 F.3d 834, 837 (6th
Cir. 2018) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court
of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973)). The
preliminary review and summary dismissal requirements
described above apply to petitions brought under section
2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases (Rule 4 review may be applied to habeas corpus
petitions other than those brought pursuant to § 2254);
28 U.S.C. § 2243.
“courts should abstain from the exercise of [section
2241] jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may
be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state courts
or by other state procedures available to the
petitioner.” Atkins, 644 F.2d at 546. Under
the doctrine of comity, allowing state courts the opportunity
to correct a constitutional violation in the first instance
(before the federal court intrudes) reduces friction between
state and federal court systems. O'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). The requirement that
a habeas petitioner exhaust state court remedies before
seeking relief in federal court “protect[s] the state
courts' opportunity to confront initially and resolve
constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions and
to limit federal judicial interference in state adjudicatory
Interstate Agreement on Detainers
Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act (IAD), a compact among
forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, and the Federal
Government, “enables a participating State to gain
custody of a prisoner incarcerated in another jurisdiction,
in order to try him on criminal charges.” Reed v.
Farley, 512 U.S. 339, 341 (1994) (citing 18 U.S.C. App.
§ 2). Under the IAD, “a prisoner held in custody
by one State may ‘request . . . a final
disposition' of the charges underlying a detainer lodged
against him by a different State.” Gilmore,
895 F.3d at 836 (citing 18 U.S.C. app. 2, § 2, art.
III(a)). Alternatively, prisoners who do not invoke the
“final disposition” provision and are being