United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Stadtmueller, U.S. District Judge
case comes before the Court on a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus filed by petitioner Gabriel Griffin
(“Griffin”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging the propriety of on ongoing federal criminal
proceeding. (Docket #1).
of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts authorizes a district court to conduct an
initial screening of habeas corpus petitions and to dismiss a
petition summarily where “it plainly appears from the
face of the petition…that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.” This rule provides the district court
the power to dismiss both those petitions that do not state a
claim upon which relief may be granted and those petitions
that are factually frivolous. See Small v. Endicott,
998 F.2d 411, 414 (7th Cir. 1993). Upon an initial Rule 4
review of habeas petitions, the court will analyze whether
the petitioner has avoided statute of limitations bars,
exhausted available state remedies, avoided procedural
default, and set forth cognizable constitutional or federal
claims that the United States Attorney's Office for this
District has violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers
(“IAD”), codified by 18 U.S.C. App. 2 § 2,
in prosecuting him in federal criminal case United States
v. Gabriel Griffin, 15-CR-238-LA-2. (Docket #1 at 10).
Griffin asserts that he gave appropriate notice as required
by the IAD but has not been brought to trial within the
prescribed time. Id.; see also (Case No.
15-CR-238-LA-2, Docket #71). Griffin seeks dismissal with
prejudice of the indictment in that case. (Docket #1 at
attempted collateral attack on a pending charge must be
rejected. Federal pretrial detainees may utilize Section 2241
to seek release from custody, but only once they have
exhausted other available remedies. Alden v.
Kellerman, 224 F. App'x 545, 547 (7th Cir. 2007).
Griffin's concern is one that may be raised in a pretrial
motion within the criminal case and, if such a motion were
denied, could be challenged on appeal. Griffin's claim is
thus prematurely presented in this Court. Alden, 224
F. App'x at 547; Williams v. Hackman, 364 F.
App'x 268, 268 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[A] federal
pretrial detainee cannot use § 2241 to preempt the judge
presiding over the criminal case.”); Griffin v.
Clarke, No. 05-C-0978, 2005 WL 2653810, at *2 (E.D. Wis.
Oct. 17, 2005) (habeas proceedings should not be turned into
“a pre-trial motion forum”); Griffin v.
Clarke, No. 15-C-1475, 2016 WL 8715630, at *1 (E.D. Wis.
Jan. 22, 2016) (rejecting a similar claim made by Gabriel
Griffin's co-defendant in 15-CR-238, Peter Griffin). This
Court will not entertain Griffin's inappropriate attempt
to derail his pending criminal case. His petition will be
denied and this action will be dismissed.
under Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
“the district court must issue or deny a certificate of
appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the
applicant.” To obtain a certificate of appealability
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), Griffin must make a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” by establishing that “reasonable jurists
could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the
petition should have been resolved in a different manner or
that the issues presented were adequate to deserve
encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (internal citations
omitted). Further, when the Court has denied relief on
procedural grounds, the petitioner must show that jurists of
reason would find it debatable both that the “petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right” and that “the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). No reasonable jurists could debate
whether Griffin's claim has merit. As a consequence, the
Court is compelled to deny him a certificate of
IT IS ORDERED that Griffin's petition
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(Docket #1) be and the same is hereby
IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of
appealability as to Griffin's petition (Docket #1) be and
the same is hereby DENIED; and
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be and the same
is hereby DISMISSED.
Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
Rule 1(b) of those Rules and Civil
Local Rule 9(a)(2) give this Court the authority to apply the
rules to other habeas corpus cases, including the rule
permitting screening of the petition.
It appears that a jury trial in that
case has been scheduled for May 21, 2018, and that Griffin
has been released on bond pending trial. See (Case