The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
FREDRICK L. GAY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 20-4066
)
MITCHELL LEE, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER AND OPINION
Before the Court is Fredrick L. Gay’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 29 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s § 2241 Petition
is DENIED.
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner has been a pre-trial detainee in the Rock Island County Jail since August 12,
2019.1 On November 16, 2019, Petitioner was involved in an interaction with a guard that
resulted in Petitioner receiving thirty days of segregation and commissary denial. Petitioner
argues that Correctional Officer Jacob Ward assaulted him, and that the correctional institution
attempted to hide the assault by pursuing disciplinary action against him. Petitioner argues that
the Disciplinary Board did not appropriately credit his testimony and that his hearing was not
handled appropriately or fairly. He requested that the finding of guilt from his disciplinary
proceeding be overturned, that the officers involved be fired, that he be financially compensated
for the unfair treatment, that the sanctions imposed be overturned, and that his state criminal
charges be dismissed.
1 The facts from the Background section are derived from the Petition and Response. ECF Nos. 1, 5.
Respondent argues that on November 16, 2019, Petitioner violated the rules by bringing
his mat to the dayroom and refusing orders from Officer Ward. Respondent explains that Officer
Ward tried to direct Petitioner away from the other inmates on the block to attempt to gain
control of the situation. Petitioner resisted and pushed Officer Ward into a corner. Respondent
argues that the two men continued to struggle, and detainees surrounded them and attempted to
remove Ward’s taser. Respondent continued that Petitioner had a disciplinary hearing and was
imposed thirty days in segregation. Petitioner appealed the decision using the jail kiosk system
and Respondent asserts that he received responses regarding that appeal on numerous occasions.
Respondent explains that Petitioner’s appeal was denied based on the video evidence.
Respondent submitted a copy of the video and documents regarding Respondent’s numerous
communications with Petitioner regarding his appeal and discipline. ECF No. 5-3.
On March 20, 2020, Petitioner filed this instant § 2241 Petition. ECF No. 1. On May 29,
2020, the Court ordered Respondent to respond to Petitioner’s due process violation claims and
dismissed without prejudice any argument Petitioner brought forth regarding excessive force.
ECF No. 2. On June 19, 2020, Respondent filed their response. ECF No. 5. Petitioner had until
July 10, 2020, to file a reply, but failed to do so. This Opinion follows.
ANALYSIS
Federal courts have jurisdiction to entertain habeas corpus petitions “only from persons
who are ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’”
Maleng v.Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). Habeas corpus is
not a permissible route for challenging conditions of confinement when “there isn’t even an
indirect effect on duration of punishment.” Robinson v. Sherrod, 631 F.3d 839, 841 (7th Cir.
2011).
As to the Petitioner’s claims related to the lack of due process from his disciplinary
procedures, it is not clear from the Petition that it would have a direct or indirect impact on his
confinement. Petitioner makes no argument that he would be eligible for pretrial release if not
for the disciplinary procedure. He has also already completed his term of segregation. Moreover,
Respondent argues that the jail appropriately addressed Petitioner’s appeal, which was denied
based on the video evidence. Respondent provided a copy of the video of the incident which
confirms Respondent’s characterization that Petitioner forcefully pushed the officer into the
corner. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument related to due process violations at his disciplinary
hearings are denied.
To the extent that Petitioner makes a claim related to his ongoing state criminal case, the
Younger abstention doctrine prohibits this Court from interfering with an ongoing state
proceeding. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Younger generally requires federal
courts to abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims that involve or call
into question ongoing state proceedings.” FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana, 502 F.3d 590, 595 (7th
Cir. 2007). Abstention is especially important in ongoing state court criminal proceedings
because states have a strong “interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from
federal interference.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986).
Abstention under the Younger doctrine “ensures that individuals or entities who have
violated state laws cannot seek refuge from enforcement of those laws behind the equitable
powers of the federal courts.” Forty One News, Inc. v. Cnty of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir.
2007). “[I]f a person is believed to have violated a state law, the state has instituted a criminal
disciplinary or other enforcement proceeding against him, and he has a federal defense, he
cannot scurry to federal court and plead that defense as a basis for enjoining the state
proceeding.” Id. (quoting Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 732 (7th Cir. 2004)).
That is precisely what Petitioner is attempting to do in the instant case. While there are
some limited bad faith exceptions to this doctrine, the Respondent provided a video to
demonstrate that Petitioner cannot reach the high standard to demonstrate bad faith, and
Petitioner has also not presented a pressing relief for immediate relief. See FreeEats, 502 F.3d at
597. Respondent was also not responsible for filing state criminal charges against Petitioner,
providing another reason to deny this claim.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 29
U.S.C. § 2241 [1] is DENIED. This case is now TERMINATED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
close this case.
ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2020.
/s/ Michael M. Mihm
Michael M. Mihm
United States District Judge