United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR A WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS, DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, AND
DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL
LAURIE
J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Latausha
Simmons has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the
revocation of her release on bond and her current confinement
in the Wayne County Jail. In her petition, she alleges that
her bond was revoked without due process. She indicates that
while this was due to her failure to appear for a court
proceeding, she did not receive notice of her court date.
Simmons seeks release from custody and reinstatement of bond.
The
Court must undertake a preliminary review of Simmons'
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, after
preliminary review, the Court determines that Simmons is not
entitled to relief, the Court must summarily dismiss the
petition. See id.; Allen v. Perini, 424
F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has duty to
“screen out” petitions that lack merit on their
face).
Here,
Simmons' petition shows she is not entitled to relief and
so the petition will be dismissed.
Although
28 U.S.C. § 2241 grants federal courts jurisdiction to
consider habeas corpus petitions filed by pre-trial
detainees, federal courts usually do not adjudicate such
petitions if the issues raised could be resolved by state
procedures available to the petitioner. See Montano v.
Texas, 867 F.3d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 2017); see also
Atkins v. People of State of Mich., 644 F.2d 543, 549
(6th Cir. 1981) (“The protection against unreasonable
bail pending trial has been found by the federal courts to be
one of the few rights, along with the right to be free of
double jeopardy, whose vindication may be asserted prior to
trial . . . by a petition for habeas corpus.” (internal
citations omitted)). But if a challenge to bail has been
asserted by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
“the petitioner must demonstrate that state remedies
have been exhausted.” Atkins, 644 F.2d at 549;
cf. Chandler v. Pratt, 96 Fed.Appx. 661, 662 (10th
Cir. 2004) (“To be eligible for habeas corpus relief
under § 2241, a federal pretrial detainee usually must
exhaust other available remedies.”).
Here,
Simmons has not established that she has exhausted available
remedies in the state courts with respect to her bail/bond
revocation claim. The Michigan Rules of Court provide that
bail/bond decisions are appealable by motion in the court
having appellate jurisdiction over the court that made the
release decision. See Mich. Ct. R. 6.106(H). Simmons
appears to contest a release decision by the Wayne County
Circuit Court. Consequently, she could exhaust state court
remedies by filing an appeal with the Michigan Court of
Appeals and then, if necessary, by filing an application for
leave to appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. Simmons does
not indicate that she has done so. She thus fails to
demonstrate that she has exhausted state court remedies
before seeking federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(c) (“An applicant shall not be deemed to
have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the
State, within the meaning of this section, if he [or she] has
the right under the law of the State to raise, by any
available procedure, the question presented”); see
also O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845
(1999); Hoard v. State of Mich., No. 05-73136, 2005
WL 2291000, *3 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 19, 2005) (dismissing bail
claim as premature due to the failure to exhaust the claim in
the Michigan appellate courts).
There
may be circumstances where a pretrial detainee seeking a writ
of habeas corpus need not exhaust. But Simmons has not shown
that this is one of those circumstances. See Moore v.
DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 447 (3d Cir. 1975)
(“[H]aving failed to exhaust his state remedies on the
merits and having failed to present an ‘extraordinary
circumstance' which would warrant pre-trial,
pre-exhaustion habeas corpus relief, we conclude that the
district court erred as a matter of law in granting
Moore's petition.”).
The
Court thus DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Simmons' habeas
petition challenging the revocation of her pre-trial release
on bail/bond in the Wayne Court Circuit Court and her current
incarceration at the Wayne County Jail. The Court DENIES a
certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would
not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 ...