applying Younger abstention doctrine to ongoing state administrative proceedings
How later courts described this case
- applying Younger abstention doctrine to ongoing state administrative proceedings
- applying Rule 4 to habeas petitions brought under § 2241
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
DREKE BIN BEY )
a/k/a Reginald Geron Brown, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) No. 4:23-CV-834 RLW
)
VALERIE HUHN, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on petitioner Dreke bin Bey’s filing titled “Affidavit
of Fact Habeas Corpus Complaint Declaration Factual Innocence to Dismiss Case for Lack of
United States Constitution Jurisdiction, Lack of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, Lack of
Common Law Jurisdiction, Lack of Delegation of Authority Order Jurisdiction, Lack of Personam
Jurisdiction, Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction, Improper
Venue,” which the Court will construe as an amended petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the following reasons, the amended petition will be denied.
Background
Petitioner is a Missouri state pretrial detainee, incarcerated at the St. Louis City Justice
Center. He has been charged with four felony counts: (1) assault—serious physical injury or
special victim, (2) armed criminal action, (3) assault—first degree or attempt, and (4) armed
criminal action. State of Missouri v. Brown, No. 2022-CR02030-01 (22nd Jud. Cir. filed Mar. 2,
2021).1 Shortly after these criminal charges were filed, the Missouri state court ordered a mental
1The Court reviewed Petitioner’s criminal case on Missouri Case.net, Missouri’s online
case management system.
examination of petitioner. On June 28, 2023, after the mental examination was conducted, the state
court found that Petitioner was no longer incompetent to understand the proceedings against him
or to assist in his defense. Petitioner was discharged from the Missouri Department of Mental
Health and returned to the custody of the St. Louis Justice Center.
The Amended Petition
In his amended petition, petitioner seeks to have his state criminal charges dismissed on
several jurisdictional grounds. He states that the criminal complaint lacks “United States
Constitution Jurisdiction,” admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, common law jurisdiction,
delegation of authority order jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction, and
territorial jurisdiction. In support of his claim, he states that he is not a person, not a defendant, not
a United States citizen, does not reside at any address, and does not have anything to do with
American waters, ships, and vessels. He objects that the criminal case does not have an injured
party, he has not given oral or written consent to the state court, and there is no territorial
jurisdiction in the court records. Finally, for all of these same reasons, he states the St. Louis City
Circuit Court is the improper venue for his criminal action.
Discussion
Habeas corpus is generally a post-conviction remedy. See Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U.S. 54, 59
(1968). However, a state court defendant attempting to litigate the authority of his or her pretrial
detention may bring a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472
F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007). As such, a § 2241 petition is the appropriate method for
petitioner to attack his state court pretrial detention.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts
provides that “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk
to notify petitioner.” Id. Rule 4 apples to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b). See Rule 1(b) (“The
district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule
1(a).”); Risenhoover v. Washington Cnty. Comm. Servs., 545 F. Supp. 2d 885, 888 (D. Minn. 2008)
(applying Rule 4 to habeas petitions brought under § 2241).
Based on the allegations in petitioner’s amended petition, the Court finds he is not entitled
to relief in federal district court. To the extent his petition can be understood, petitioner is claiming
the Missouri state court does not have jurisdiction of his criminal case. The Supreme Court has
warned federal courts to guard against the interruption of state adjudications by means of federal
habeas proceedings. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 490 (1973). Specifically,
the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris requires federal courts to abstain from hearing
petitions related to ongoing state criminal proceedings that implicate important state interests.
Younger, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Petitioner’s criminal proceedings are ongoing in the St. Louis City
Circuit Court and petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise these jurisdictional issues there.
In light of this, the Court declines petitioner’s request to insert itself into his ongoing state criminal
case. Younger, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); see also Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005)
(applying Younger abstention doctrine to ongoing state administrative proceedings).
For these reasons, it plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief on his § 2241
petition. The petition will be summarily dismissed.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s filing titled “Affidavit of Fact Habeas
Corpus Complaint Declaration Factual Innocence to Dismiss Case for Lack of United States
Constitution Jurisdiction, Lack of Admiralty and Maritime Jurisdiction, Lack of Common Law
Jurisdiction, Lack of Delegation of Authority Order Jurisdiction, Lack of Personam Jurisdiction,
Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction, Improper Venue,” which the
Court construes as an applications for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is
DISMISSED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that petitioner’s affidavit of fact for appointment of next
friend is DENIED. [ECF No. 2]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will not issue a certificate of appealability.
An Order of Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.
Acre L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of December, 2023.