United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Southern Division
T. NEFF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner,
purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, because
Petitioner challenges his pretrial detention, his petition is
properly considered one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See
Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 n.1 (6th Cir.
1981) (holding that, where a pretrial detainee challenges the
constitutionality of his or her pretrial-or
prejudgment-detention, he or she must pursue relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2241).
after the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court
must undertake a preliminary review of the 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 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If so, the petition must
be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see Allen v. Perini,
424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (district court has the
duty to “screen out” petitions that lack merit on
their face). Although Petitioner's habeas application is
governed by § 2241, rather than § 2254, Rule 1(b)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes the
application of the rules to habeas petitions brought under
dismissal under Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise
legally frivolous claims, as well as those containing factual
allegations that are palpably incredible or false. Carson
v. Burke, 178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After
undertaking the review required by Rule 4, the Court
concludes that the petition must be dismissed without
prejudice because Petitioner has failed to exhaust available
state court remedies.
Theron Phone Hunt is presently detained at the St. Joseph
County Jail, awaiting trial on charges of open murder, armed
robbery, and felon in possession of a firearm.On November 3,
2019, Petitioner filed his habeas corpus petition raising six
grounds for relief, as follows:
I. Excessive bail.
II. Ineffective counsel.
III. Denied fundamental constitutional right of access to the
IV. Religious discrimination, violation of free exercise
V. Excessive force.
VI. Radical defect in right to speedy trial.
(Pet., ECF No. 1, PageID.6-12.) Petitioner claims that he has
raised some of these challenges in the St. Joseph County
court; however, he acknowledges that he has not ...