United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Greenwood Division, Anderson
proceeding pro se, brings this action, (ECF No. 1), seeking a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Petitioner, as a pretrial detainee at the Laurens County
Detention Center ("LCDC"), files this action in
forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This matter is
before the court for review of the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation ("Report") (ECF No. 10),
filed on September 2, 2015, recommending that
Petitioner’s action, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed without
prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an answer
or return. The court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s
Report, (ECF No. 10), and DISMISSES Petitioner’s action
without prejudice and without requiring Respondent to file an
answer or return.
RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
alleges verbatim that he was arrested for "Violation of
Court order of Protection…Attempted
Murder…[and] Possession of a Weapon During a Violation
Crime." (ECF No. 1 at 3.) He alleges that he has been in
jail for more than a year, but has not been presented with an
indictment to the grand jury. (Id. at 2.)
states that he is represented by an attorney, Mr. Bryan C.
Able, who, on July 9, 2015, filed a motion to dismiss the
charges against Petitioner and a motion for a speedy trial.
(ECF No. 1 at 9.) However, Petitioner contends that he
"ha[s] not been to court yet." (Id.)
Petitioner now brings this action against the Director of
Laurens County Detention Center to be released from custody
and to dismiss the pending criminal charges. (ECF No. 1 at
Magistrate Judge’s Report was made in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 for the
District of South Carolina. The Magistrate Judge makes only a
recommendation to this court, and the recommendation has no
presumptive weight-the responsibility to make a final
determination remains with this court. See Mathews v.
Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). The court is charged
with making a de novo determination of those
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific
objections are made, and the court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate Judge’s
recommendation or recommit the matter with instructions. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Magistrate Judge recommends that Petitioner’s action be
dismissed without prejudice and without requiring Respondent
to file an answer or return because "[g]enerally though
‘an attempt to dismiss an indictment or otherwise
prevent a prosecution’ is not attainable through
federal habeas corpus." (ECF No. 10 at 3 (quoting
Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1976)).)
Petitioner specifically objects to the previous sentence
because "the solicitor, never prepared an indictment for
the Grand Jury, there is not even record of Him filing with
the Clerk of Court of Laurens County." (ECF No. 14.)
there is no indictment to dismiss against Petitioner, it does
not change that "[a]n attempt to dismiss an indictment
or otherwise prevent a prosecution . . . is normally
not attainable through federal habeas corpus . . . ."
Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280, 1283 (5th Cir.
1976) (emphasis added). If Petitioner’s federal habeas
corpus is granted, then Petitioner’s prosecution would
be prevented. Therefore, Petitioner’s objections are
also filed a letter, (ECF No. 17), on October 6, 2015, after
the deadline for objections to the Report. In his letter,
Petitioner states that he wants his day in court because
"failure to conduct such hearing, properly demanded by
defendant, deprives the Court of General Sessions of
Jurisdiction to indict or try the defendant." (ECF No.
17 (quoting State v. Wheeler, 193 S.E.2d 515, 518
Petitioner is correct, the federal court does not have
jurisdiction to interfere with state criminal proceedings. As
the Magistrate Judge explains, the federal court should not
interfere with any pending state judicial proceeding when
"(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; (2)
the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3)
there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in
the state proceedings." (ECF No. 10 at 4 (quoting
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Md. Comm ’n on Human
Relations, 38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994)).) Here,
Petitioner is involved in an ongoing state criminal
proceeding, the state has an interest in being free from
federal interference, and "a pending state prosecution
provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for
vindication of federal constitutional rights." (ECF No.
10 at 4 (quoting Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117,
124 (1975)).) Therefore, this court cannot interfere with
Petitioner’s pending criminal proceedings.
thorough review of the Report and the record, the court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report, (ECF No. 10), and
DISMISSES Petitioner’s action, (ECF No. 1), without
prejudice and without requiring ...