“federal courts may not enjoin pending state court criminal proceedings absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief”
How later courts described this case
- “federal courts may not enjoin pending state court criminal proceedings absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
RICKY DEAN SHARRAH PETITIONER
V. Civil No. 2:21-cv-02128-PKH-MEF
RON BROWN, Sheriff of
Crawford County, Arkansas RESPONDENT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF
No. 1). The Respondent has not been directed to file a response and none is necessary. The matter
is ready for Report and Recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Ricky Dean Sharrah (“Sharrah”), filed his current pro se Petition on August 4,
2021. (ECF No. 1). This is Sharrah’s second such petition since June 23, 2021.1
Sharrah is a pretrial detainee being held in the Crawford County Justice Center in Van
Buren, Arkansas. (Id., p. 1). The Petition concerns his state criminal cases, State of Arkansas v.
Ricky Sharrah, Case Nos. 17CR-20-985, 986, 999, 1000, 1001 and Case No. 17CR-2021-162.2 In
Case No. 17CR-20-985, Sharrah is charged with Terroristic Threatening – 1st Degree. In Case No.
17CR-20-986, Sharrah is charged with Simultaneous Possession of Drugs and Firearms,
Possession of Methamphetamine, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, and Resisting Arrest. In Case
No. 17CR-20-999, Sharrah is charged with Terroristic Threatening – 1st Degree and Violation of
1 On June 23, 2021, Sharrah filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court in Case
No. 2:21-cv-02115. A Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation was filed on July 8, 2021, recommending
dismissal pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. (ECF No. 3). Sharrah filed objections. (ECF No. 4). An
Order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in full and dismissing that action was entered on
July 21, 2021. (ECF No. 5).
2 Sharrah provides a partial list of case numbers in his current Petition. (ECF No. 1, p. 2). The Court located Sharrah’s
state court case information on caseinfo.arcourts.gov. (Last accessed on August 6, 2021.)
a Protection Order. In Case Nos. 17CR-20-1000 and 1001, Sharrah is charged with two more
counts of Violation of a Protection Order. In Case No. 17CR-21-162, Sharrah is charged with
Possession of Methamphetamine with Purpose to Deliver, Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
Battery in the Second Degree on a Law Enforcement Officer and Absconding. The Hon. Randy
Wright has been assigned to preside over these cases.3 All of these cases have been scheduled for
a status and inquiry as to counsel hearing on Thursday, August 19, 2021, at 2:00 p.m.
Sharrah’s current Petition asserts four grounds for relief. First, he alleges a violation of
Constitutional due process, stating: “I am being held without having caused injury per the common
law. I am being denied a common law court. I am being denied a common law bail (gold and
silver coin). I am being held without a common law warrant or grand jury indictment. I am being
held without being informed as to the common law nature and cause of the accusation.” (ECF No.
1, p. 6). Second, he alleges that he is being “warred against” by the State of Arkansas, Crawford
County and its officers, officials, and agents, stating that “[i]t is the common practice of the
foregoing to practice high crimes, treason and deprivation of rights under color of law,” and “to
violate their oaths of office.” (Id.). Third, Sharrah claims to be “a foreign minister of the Royal
Kingdom of Heaven,” which “is recognized by both of the freedom of religion clauses of the
United States and State of Arkansas Constitution,” and “only the supreme court of the United
States has original juri[s]diction (sic)[,] [n]ot the State of Arkansas or any other court.” (Id.).
Fourth, he claims that the State of Arkansas “has no interest,” stating further, “I am not contracted
to the copyrighted UCC, copyrighted Arkansas Code Annotated[,] [n]or any other contract
admiralty or otherwise[,]” and “there exists no ratification of commencement.” (Id., p. 7). In other
words, Sharrah’s current Petition essentially repackages and realleges the sovereign citizen
3 Judge Wright was assigned to Case Nos. 17CR-20-985, 986, 1000 and 1001 by Orders entered on June 8, 2021.
Judge Wright was assigned to Case Nos. 17CR-20-999 and 17CR-21-162 by Orders entered on June 11, 2021.
twaddle he asserted in his previous case. For relief, Sharrah requests his immediate release. (Id.
at 7).
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Congress’s general grant of habeas authority to the federal courts appears in 28 U.S.C. §
2241, which extends the writ to, among others, persons “in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Pretrial detainees challenging
the legitimacy of pending state litigation must pursue relief under § 2241. Phillips v. Court of
Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio, 668 F.3d 804, 809 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Rojas
Hernandez v. Paget, 2016 WL 7404742, * 2 (D. Minn. Nov. 10, 2016) (“Section 2241 has been
recognized as a potential source of habeas review for state pretrial detainees.”). “Before obtaining
habeas relief, however, the petitioner must not only be in custody but also have exhausted his state
remedies.” Rojas Hernandez, supra. (citing Moore v. United States, 875 F.Supp. 620, 622 (D.
Neb. 1994). “Despite the absence of an exhaustion requirement in the statutory language of section
2241(c)(3), a body of case law has developed holding that although section 2241 establishes
jurisdiction in the federal courts to consider pre-trial habeas corpus petitions, federal courts should
abstain from the exercise of that jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved
either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other state procedures available to the
petitioner.” Id. (quoting Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 1987).
III. ANALYSIS
Sharrah’s Petition raises issues that may be resolved by trial or other state process and, as
such, his claims are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Pursuant to Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts are required to abstain from hearing cases when: “(1) there is
an ongoing state judicial proceeding which (2) implicates important state interests, and when (3)
that proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions presented.”
Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Fuller v. Ulland, 76 F.3d 957, 959
(8th Cir. 1996)). Ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate the important state interest of
enforcing state criminal law, and constitutional claims relating to that proceeding should be raised
there. Meador v. Paulson, 385 F. App’x 613 (8th Cir. 2010); see also Gillette v. N. Dakota Disc.
Bd. Counsel, 610 F.3d 1045, 1046 (8th Cir. 2010) (“federal courts may not enjoin pending state
court criminal proceedings absent a showing of bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual
circumstance that would call for equitable relief”) (internal quotations omitted)).
At the time Sharrah’s current Petition was filed on August 4, 2021, there were ongoing
state judicial proceedings pending, which implicated the important state interest of enforcing state
criminal laws, and those pending state criminal proceedings afford Sharrah an adequate
opportunity to raise the constitutional and jurisdictional questions he presents. His allegations all
concern his pending state criminal cases, and his challenge of the Arkansas state courts to exercise
jurisdiction over him. Pursuant to Younger, this Court is required to abstain from hearing the
matter, leaving Sharrah to first pursue his constitutional and jurisdictional claims in his state
criminal cases.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Sharrah’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 9th day of August 2021.
/s/
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE