Gaskins v. Stegall

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CHARLOTTE DIVISION

CIVIL CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00427-MR

LATOSHA DENISE GASKINS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

C. STEGALL, et al., ) MEMORANDUM OF

) DECISION AND ORDER

Respondents. )

_______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc.

4].

I. BACKGROUND

The pro se Petitioner, who is not in custody, filed the instant action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, addressing pending charges of impaired

driving and transporting an open container of alcoholic beverage in Gaston

County District Court Case Nos. 2023CR204959 and 23CR700373. The

original Petition was dismissed as seriously deficient, and the Court granted

Petitioner the opportunity to amend. [See Docs. 1, 3]. The Amended § 2241

Petition is now before the Court for review. [Doc. 4].

The Petitioner describes the incident at issue as follows:

On the night of 1/06/2023 I fell asleep in my vehicle listening to

music on my private residence, with no intent to drive nor travel

from the parking spot directly in front of my apartment unit. No

disturbance nor crime was committed.

….

I simply fell asleep in my private conveyance on private property.

A neighbor was concerned. I was compliant with the officers that

arrived on the scene. The law is to protect and serve. This call

was a ‘wellness’ check per the police report. Once I was

awakened the officer, the ‘wellness check’ was completed.

[Doc. 4-2 at 1; Doc. 4 at 7]. At that point, the Petitioner failed a field sobriety

test and was arrested. [See Doc. 4-2 at 3 (Detention of Impaired Driver

Order)].1

Construing the Amended Petition liberally, the Petitioner appears to

argue that she was arrested without a warrant or probable cause in violation

of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore the resulting evidence is fruit of the

poisonous tree; that applying the North Carolina criminal statutes to her

violates due process;2 that her conduct is not criminal under the North

1 The Order states: “DEFENDANT WAS PASSED OUT BEHIND THE WHEEL WITH

ENGINE RUNNING, EXHIBITED UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE ON SFST’S,

HAS NO CUSTODIAN IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE TO PROVIDE SUPERVISION AND

TRANSPORTATION.” [Doc. 4-2 at 3]. A handwritten note by the Petitioner states: “I was

at home I did not need any supervision or transportation, [officer] allowed me to go inside

my home to use bathroom before she arrested me.” [Id.].

2 The Petitioner cites “Article 5, Section 1 of the Constitution,” but quotes the Fourteenth

Amendment. [Doc. 4 at 6].

Carolina or United States Constitutions; that her arrest violates the Fifth and

Sixth Amendments; and that the North Carolina District Court lacks

jurisdiction over the criminal charges. [Doc. 4 at 6-7; Doc. 4-2 at 1].

The Petitioner admits that she did not exhaust these grounds before

filing the instant action as follows:

This case is still pending. However, I filed a grievance with the

NC State Bar on the DA assigned to pretrial (Joshua Warner) file

#23G0982 for Prosecutorial Misconduct for requesting the judge

to revoke my bail & jail me with a higher bond due to the witness

who called on the night of 1/07/23 being ‘afraid’ and ‘feeling

threatened’ when he was unable to prove that I committed such

an act. 1) DA failed to disclose exculpatory evidence 2) using

improper arguments to have me jailed. (Apparently to retaliate).

The judge did not support his recommendation. This was after

the DA was informed of 5.1 constitutional challenge.

[Doc. 1 at 7]. The criminal cases are “currently scheduled to be presented

before the court on November 9, 2023 at the Gaston County District Court.”

[Id.]. The Petitioner asks this Court to dismiss the criminal charges because

“no crime was committed.” [Id.].

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that

courts are to promptly examine habeas petitions to determine whether the

petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set forth therein. See Rule

1(a), (b), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (a district court may apply the rules for § 2254

proceedings to habeas petitions other than those filed under § 2254). Pro

se pleadings are construed liberally. See generally Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519 (1972) (a pro se complaint, however inartfully pled, must be held to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). After

examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the § 2241 Petition

can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and the

governing case law. See Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th

Cir. 1970).

III. DISCUSSION

As a preliminary matter, all of the Petitioner’s claims are vague,

conclusory, and lacking in factual support.

The Petitioner’s claims are also unexhausted on the face of the

Petition. A federal habeas petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the

judgment of a State court,” may seek relief pursuant to Title 28, Section

2254(a). A pretrial detainee, however, is not “in custody” pursuant to a state

court judgment a relief under § 2254 is not available. See Dickerson v.

Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1987). A pretrial detainee’s exclusive

federal remedy for alleged unconstitutional confinement is to file a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), but only after fully

exhausting the available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);

Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004). Although § 2241

contains no express reference to exhaustion of state remedies, as does §

2254, exhaustion is required prior to filing a § 2241 petition. See, e.g.,

Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir., 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973); Moore v. DeYoung,

515 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement,

a habeas petitioner must present his claims to the state courts such that the

courts have the fair “opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the

facts bearing upon [his] constitutional claim.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.

270, 275-77 (1971); see O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (in

order to properly exhaust state remedies, “state prisoners must give the state

courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking

one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process”).

Here, the Petitioner admits that she did not exhaust her claims in the

North Carolina courts; that she has only filed a Bar complaint against the

prosecutor; and that she has a criminal court date on November 9. Her

reliance on having filed a Bar complaint is unavailing; she is required to

exhaust her remedies in the North Carolina courts. Picard, 404 U.S. at 275-

77. As such, the Petitioner failed to exhaust her state remedies before filing

this action, and the Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

Even if the Petitioner had exhausted her claims, § 2241 relief appears

to be precluded by abstention principles. While federal courts have the

jurisdiction to grant federal habeas relief in advance of trial, Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), “serves as an exception to the traditional rule that

federal courts should exercise jurisdiction conferred on them by statute.”

Martin Marietta Corp. v. Md. Comm’n on Human Relations, 38 F.3d 1392,

1396 (4th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted). In Younger, the Supreme Court held

that a federal court should not interfere with state criminal proceedings

except in the most narrow and extraordinary of circumstances. 401 U.S. at

43-44. Under the abstention doctrine, abstention is proper in federal court

when (1) there is an ongoing state court proceeding; (2) the proceeding

implicates important state interests; and (3) the petitioner has an adequate

opportunity to present the federal claims in the state proceeding. Emp’rs

Res. Mgmt. Co. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423,

432 (1982)); see also Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72–73

(2013) (explaining the circumstances when Younger abstention is

appropriate). The Petitioner has an adequate remedy at law with regard to

her criminal prosecution, and she has failed to demonstrate the existence of

narrow and extraordinary circumstances that warrant immediate

consideration of her claims. Accordingly, the Petitioner’s § 2241 claims are

barred by Younger abstention.

Moreover, to the extent that the Petitioner seeks the dismissal of her

pending criminal charges, such relief is not available by way of § 2241. See

Dickerson v. State of Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 226 (5" Cir. 1987) (“[A]n

attempt to dismiss an indictment or otherwise prevent a prosecution” is not

attainable through federal habeas corpus) (quoting Brown v. Estelle, 530

F.2d 1280, 1283 (5' Cir. 1976)).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Petitioners Amended § 2241

Petition is dismissed without prejudice.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Petitioner's Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 4] is DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court declines to issue a certificate of

appealability.

The Clerk is respectfully instructed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. _ Signed: November 6, 2023

Ct ey

Chief United States District Judge AS