The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NASIR BROWN :
:
v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-2453
:
MICHELLE FARRELL, et al. :
ORDER
This 20th day of December, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;1
2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure
to exhaust state court remedies; and
3. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor established that
reasonable jurists would disagree with this court’s procedural disposition of his claims. A
certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.
/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh
United States District Judge
1 I separately note that Petitioner brings his Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. § 2241 does explicitly
address exhaustion. But “‘an exhaustion requirement has developed through decisional law, applying
principles of federalism,’ and if a petitioner has not availed himself of state court remedies, the federal court
must not exercise jurisdiction at the pre-trial stage absent ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Sleets v.
Pennsylvania, No. CV 16-930, 2017 WL 8683557, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2017), report and
recommendation adopted, No. CV 16-930, 2018 WL 1570814 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2018) (quoting Moore v.
DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975). In Moore, the Third Circuit explicitly stated that “although
there is a distinction in the statutory language of §§ 2254 and 2241, there is no distinction insofar as the
exhaustion requirement is concerned.” 515 F.2d at 442. There are no extraordinary circumstance here to
excuse Petitioner from the exhaustion requirement.