United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Steven Whalen Mag. Judge
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS 
E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
James Bowens filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Bowens is
incarcerated at the federal holding facility at the Midland
County Jail. (Id. at PageID.1.) Bowens challenges
criminal charges filed against him in the state of West
Virginia. (Id.) The Court dismisses his petition for
failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
was arrested on September 1, 2017 by West Virginia State
Police. (Id. at PageID.11.) He alleges that state
police entered his West Virginia residence without a valid
warrant, recovering firearms and crack cocaine.
(Id.) According to Bowens, information obtained
pursuant to the West Virginia criminal investigation and the
resulting state criminal charges informed the filing of a
third superseding indictment in a criminal case pending in
this Court. See United States v. Bowens, No.
5:17-cr-20184. Based on the allegations in the petition, it
appears the West Virginia criminal case remains pending. (ECF
No. 1, PageID.2.) The petition raises two claims:
[I.] Did the State of West Virginia issue an Unlawful
Fraudulent Criminal Complaint 17-M30F-00151 without probable
cause or a warrant against the petitioner which was
ultimately used to procure a third superseding indictment
against the petitioner in Federal Court on January 24, 2018?
[II.] Did the State of West Virginia
“respondents” illegal actions consequently
violate the petitioner's 5th, 6th, 14th amendment rights
to due process and a speedy trial?
(Id. at PageID.10.)
courts must undertake a preliminary review of a habeas
petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from
the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If the federal court
determines that the petitioner is not entitled to relief, it
may summarily dismiss the petition. Id.;
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). Rule 4
requires courts to dismiss a habeas petition that raises
legally frivolous claims or contains factual allegations that
are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke,
178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999) (citing Small v.
Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993)).
petition fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted because Bowens may not challenge his pending state
court proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Section 2241
permits federal courts to consider pretrial habeas corpus
petitions. Olivier v. State, No. 17-5735, 2017 WL
9732080, at *2 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Atkins v.
Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 (6th Cir. 1981)).
However, “courts should abstain from the exercise of
that 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.”
Id. (quoting Atkins, 644 F.2d at 546);
see also O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838,
844-45 (1999) (explaining that under the doctrine of comity,
federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state court
proceedings and avoid friction between state and federal
courts). A federal court can only intervene in an ongoing
state proceeding under extraordinary circumstances.
Atkins, 644 F.2d at 546. A speedy trial claim can be
the basis of such a circumstance, but only if the petitioner
has also exhausted his available state court remedies.
Id. at 546-47; see also Turner v.
Tennessee, 858 F.2d 1201, 1204 (6th Cir. 1988),
vacated on other grounds, 492 U.S. 902 (1989)
(finding that a petitioner facing prejudice from prior
ineffective assistance of counsel and due process violations
on retrial are extraordinary circumstances); Delk v.
Atkinson, 665 F.2d 90, 93 (6th Cir. 1981) (finding that
a petitioner seeking to avoid a second trial on the grounds
of double jeopardy is an extraordinary circumstance).
Bowens raises a speedy trial claim, he has not exhausted it
as Atkins requires. None of the other circumstances
under which a federal court may consider a pretrial habeas
corpus petition apply. Accordingly, the Court will not
interfere with a matter pending in state court and the
petition will be dismissed.