The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
NORTHERN DIVISION
JIMMY D. BROWN PETITIONER
V. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:23-CV-69-DPJ-FKB
TYREE JONES, SHERIFF OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI RESPONDENT
ORDER
Jimmy D. Brown claims Sheriff Tyree Jones has held him as a pretrial detainee in the
Hinds County Detention Center for nine months without indictment. He asks the Court to
“dismiss charges and release” him. Pet. [1] at 8; see also Mandamus [10] at 2 (asking the Court
to issue “an Order to immediately release the Petitioner”).
After Brown filed his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a Hinds County grand jury
indicted him on charges of house burglary, aggravated assault, and armed robbery. Mot. [11] at
4; Indictment [11-7] (filed May 5, 2023). His case is set for trial this month. R&R [27] at 1.
United States Magistrate Judge F. Keith Ball, in his Report and Recommendation [27],
recommends granting Respondent’s motion to dismiss [11]. Judge Ball points out that “[a]
pretrial habeas petition under § 2241 may not be used to interfere with or derail a state criminal
proceeding.” R&R [27] at 1 (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484,
490 (1973)). So, Brown’s requests for dismissal and release fail to state a claim.
Judge Ball also notes that Brown’s recent filings suggest he is seeking monetary
damages. R&R [27] at 1. Claims for monetary damages must be pursued under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983; damages are not available in a federal habeas corpus proceeding. Id. at 2 (citing Preiser
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493 (1973)).
Judge Ball issued his R&R on October 19, 2023, and Brown had fourteen days to object.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see R&R [27] at 2 (advising of deadline). He did not. “When no timely
objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the
record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note
(1983), quoted in Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc), superseded on other grounds by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) as noted in Alexander v. Verizon
Wireless Servs., L.L.C., 875 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2017).
Finding no clear error, the Court accepts the well-reasoned recommendation [27] of
Judge Ball. Respondent’s motion to dismiss [11] is granted; Brown’s motions for mandamus
and judgment [10, 24] are denied. The petition is dismissed.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 13th day of November, 2023.
s/ Daniel P. Jordan III
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE