United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
L. HORNSBY U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter
was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review,
report and recommendation.
the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus
filed by pro se petitioner Jonas Jaggers Coffman
(“Petitioner”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241.
This petition was received and filed in this court on
December 30, 2016. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee, is
incarcerated in the Caddo Correctional Center in Shreveport,
Louisiana. He challenges his current detention. Petitioner
names the Caddo Correctional Center and the First Judicial
District Court as respondents.
support of this petition, Petitioner alleges (1) he was not
brought before the judge within 72 hours of his arrest, (2)
his detention is illegal, (3) he was brought before the judge
nine months after he was arrested, and (4) his prosecution is
illegal because he was detained without a bill of information
or an indictment.
reasons that follow, Petitioner is not entitled to the relief
requested and his petition should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust state court remedies.
corpus relief is available to a person who is in custody
"in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the
right to pursue habeas relief in federal court is
not unqualified. It is well settled that a petitioner seeking
federal habeas corpus relief cannot collaterally
attack his state court conviction in federal court until he
has exhausted all available state remedies. Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379
(1982); Minor v. Lucas, 697 F.2d 697 (5th Cir.
to proceed under Section 2241 depends upon the fulfillment of
two prerequisites. The statute itself requires that
petitioner must be "in custody" in order to seek
habeas relief. Once petitioner has met this
prerequisite, he must then show that he has exhausted
available state remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35
L.Ed.2d 433 (1983). The exhaustion requirement is a judicial
abstention policy developed "to protect the state
courts' opportunity to confront and resolve initially any
constitutional issues arising within their jurisdictions as
well as to limit federal interference in the state
adjudicatory process." Dickerson v. State of
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987).
pretrial habeas relief is not a tool which can be
used to derail or interfere with a state's criminal
process. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 442
(1973). Absent exceptional circumstances, this court is not
authorized to interfere with state trial court proceedings.
has failed to provide documentation that he has exhausted
available state remedies prior to filing his petition in this
court. This requirement is not a jurisdictional bar but a
procedural one erected in the interest of comity providing
state courts first opportunity to pass upon and correct
alleged constitutional violations. Picard v. Connor,
404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509, 30 L.Ed.2d 438, 443 (1971);
Rose v. Lundy, supra.
IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's petition for
writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE for ...