United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
JEANTRELL S. PIERSON
WARDEN KATHY FOTENOT
UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
petitioner Jeantrell S. Pierson filed the instant petition
for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 on January
24, 2018. Petitioner is a detainee in custody at the
Lafayette Parish Correctional Center. This matter has been
referred to the undersigned for review, report, and
recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
§636 and the standing orders of the Court. For the
following reasons it is recommended that the petition be
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
of the Case
about October 27, 2017, petitioner was booked into the
Lafayette Parish Correctional Center on charges of taking
contraband to or from a penal institution and for violating
parole. SeeRec. Doc. 1; seealso
On December 20, 2017, he was charged with 2nd
Degree Murder and held on a $250, 000 bond. Id. He
argues that he was charged only to be held on a $250, 000
bond, that he is one of the numerous suspects to be charged,
that the witnesses are not credible, and that there is a lack
of evidence. He asks this Court to “exempt [his] bond
of $250, 000 and reduce it to $0.” [Rec. Doc. 1]
he submitted a copy of a “Motion to Quash” to
this Court on March 5, 2018, presumably filed in the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, it is unknown whether that
court has ruled on petitioner's motion [Rec. Doc. 2].
Moreover, petitioner admits that he has not appealed any
issues to the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal or the
Louisiana Supreme Court. Rec. Doc. 1 at p. 7, ¶ 14.
is a pre-trial detainee challenging pending Louisiana state
court criminal prosecutions. His habeas petition is
properly construed as seeking relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2241, which applies to persons in custody awaiting trial who
have not yet been convicted. Stringer v. Williams,
161 F.3d 259, 262 (5th Cir. 1998); Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 484 U.S. 956, 108 S.Ct. 352, 98 L.Ed.2d 378
(1987)(“Section 2254 applies only to post-trial
situations and affords relief to a petitioner ‘in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court.'
Pretrial petitions are properly brought under §2241,
‘which applies to persons in custody regardless of
whether final judgment has been rendered and regardless of
the present status of the case pending against
him.'”); and Robinson v. Wade, 686 F.2d
298, 302-03, 303 n. 8 (5th Cir.1982) (“Robinson's
petition is properly considered to arise under 28 U.S.C. s
2241(c)(3), allowing the writ of habeas corpus to
petitioners ‘in custody in violation of the
Constitution, ' rather than under 28 U.S.C. s 2254(a),
which requires that custody be ‘pursuant to the
judgment of a state court.'”)
requirement of exhaustion of state court remedies in a
federal habeas corpus proceeding filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §2254 is well established. A petitioner
seeking federal habeas corpus relief cannot
collaterally attack his state court conviction in federal
court until he has exhausted available state remedies.
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198 (1982);
Minor v. Lucas, 697 F.2d 697 (5th Cir. 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, 816 F.2d at 225;
Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275, 92 S.Ct. 509
(1971); Shute v. Texas, 117 F.3d 233 (5th Cir.
1997). In order to satisfy the exhaustion
requirement, the petitioner must have provided all state
courts that could review the matter with a fair opportunity
to review all of his habeas corpus claims before a
federal court will review those claims. Anderson v.
Harless, 459 U.S. 4, 103 S.Ct. 277 (1982);
Picard, 404 U.S. 270.
regard to habeas petitions filed under 28 U.S.C.
§2241 by pre-trial detainees, there is no express
statutory requirement that the detainee exhaust state court
remedies prior to asserting his claims in federal court.
However, the jurisprudence requires persons seeking such
relief pursuant to §2241 to first exhaust state court
remedies before seeking federal intervention.
Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 224-225; Braden v. 30th
Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,
489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973); Robinson v.
Wade, 686 F.2d at 303, n. 8 (“Although section
2241 contains no statutory requirement of exhaustion like
that found in section 2254(b), exhaustion of state remedies
has been held a necessary prelude to its invocation.”)
admits that he has not exhausted State court remedies. [Rec.
Doc. 1at p. 7, ¶ 14.] Accordingly, it is clear that he
did not seek supervisory review in the Louisiana Supreme
Court prior to filing his federal petition and therefore
petitioner has not exhausted available State court remedies.
He is not entitled to proceed herein until and unless he can
establish either exhaustion or the absence of any State