United States District Court, D. South Carolina
ORDER AND NOTICE
V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge.
Clevon Feaster (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,
filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to the provisions of 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c)
(D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such
petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations
to the district judge.
established local procedure in this judicial district, a
careful review has been made of this petition pursuant to the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United
States District Court,  the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and
other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a
less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys.
Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir.
1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a
complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development
of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se
complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be
true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir.
1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se
pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the
pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could
prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of
liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore
a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set
forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district
court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d
387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
and Procedural Background
is a pretrial detainee in the Chester County jail awaiting
disposition of three counts of armed robbery and one count of
possession of a weapon during the commission of a violent
crime. [ECF No. 1 at 3]. Petitioner claims Chester County
authorities unlawfully arrested him on September 13, 2016.
Id. Petitioner alleges on September 15, 2016, York
County served him with a warrant based on information
obtained during his September 13, 2016 arrest. Id.
Petitioner states that on August 23, 2017, his York County
charges were dropped, and Cherokee County authorities served
him with warrants for armed robbery based on the York County
warrants. Id. Petitioner seeks release from
detention and a “bar against prosecution for use of any
evidence stemming from illegal arrest in Chester, SC on
September 13, 2016.” Id. at 10.
filed the instant habeas petition seeking to be released from
detention and an order prohibiting his prosecution based on
information obtained from his September 13, 2016, arrest.
[ECF No. 1 at 10]. Pretrial petitions for habeas corpus are
properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 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.” United
States v. Tootle, 65 F.3d 381, 383 (4th Cir. 1995)
(quoting Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224
(5th Cir. 1987)). However, federal habeas relief is available
under § 2241 only if exceptional circumstances justify
the provision of federal review. Dickerson, 816 F.2d
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme
Court held that a federal court should not equitably
interfere with state criminal proceedings “except in
the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances.”
Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 903 (4th Cir. 1996).
The Younger Court noted that courts of equity should
not act unless the moving party has no adequate remedy at law
and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable
relief. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 43-44
(citation omitted). From Younger and its progeny,
the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has culled the following
test to determine when abstention is appropriate: “(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.” Martin Marietta Corp. v.
Maryland Comm'n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392,
1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Middlesex County Ethics
Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423,
states he is currently detained pending disposition of state
criminal charges, satisfying the first part of the test. The
second part of the test is met because the Supreme Court has
noted that “the States' interest in administering
their criminal justice systems free from federal interference
is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should
influence a court considering equitable types of
relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49
(1986). The Fourth Circuit has addressed the third criterion
in noting “‘that ordinarily a pending state
prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient
opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional
rights.'” Gilliam, 75 F.3d at 904 (quoting
Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)).
Petitioner can pursue his illegal arrest claims, and
challenge any statements made during this arrest, during the
disposition of his criminal charges. Accordingly,
Petitioner's petition is subject to summary dismissal.
See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44.
may attempt to correct the defects in his complaint by filing
an amended petition by August 7, 2018, along with any
appropriate service documents. Petitioner is reminded that an
amended petition replaces the original petition and should be
complete in itself. See Young v. City of Mount
Ranier, 238 F.3d 567, 572 (4th Cir. 2001) (“As a
general rule, an amended pleading ordinarily supersedes the
original and renders it of no legal effect.”) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). If Petitioner files an
amended petition, the undersigned will conduct screening of
the amended petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. If
Petitioner fails to file an amended petition or fails to cure
the deficiencies identified above, the court will recommend
to the district court that the case be dismissed.