The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANTHONY THOMAS DEWAYNE )
WOODARD, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case No. 3:24-cv-1251-DWD
vs. )
)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
Petitioner, a pretrial detainee in the Circuit Court of Perry County, Illinois, filed a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and a Motion for Removal
Jurisdiction in Propria Persona (Doc. 4). The statutory basis for the Petition is unclear. (Doc.
1). In any event, though, the Petition is now before the Court for a preliminary review.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts provides: “If
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 the petitioner.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
U.S. District Courts; accord Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 663 (2005).1
In the Petition, Petitioner indicates he is incarcerated, as a pretrial detainee, for 1
count of aggravated battery of a peace officer and 2 counts of resisting or obstructing a
1Rule 1(b) states, “[t]he district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition
not covered by Rule 1(a).” As such, the Rules may be applied in the context of § 2241 or § 2254. See Hudson
v. Helman, 948 F. Supp. 810 (C.D. Ill. 1996) (citing Kramer v. Jenkins, 108 F.R.D. 429, 431 (N.D. Ill. 1985)).
peace officer. (Doc. 1, pg. 1). The former charge is a Class 2 felony, while the latter charges
are Class A misdemeanors. (Docs. 1, pg. 1; 4, pgs. 2-3). These charges were brought in an
Information dated April 1, 2024. (Doc. 4, pgs. 2-3). On April 5, 2024, Attorney Jordan
Campanella was appointed to represent Petitioner. (Doc. 1, pg. 4).
As a pretrial detainee, Petitioner is not yet subject to the judgment of the Circuit
Court of Perry County on those charges and it does not appear he has filed any appeals.
Nevertheless, Petitioner alleges an “adjudication was imposed on him without due
process.” (Doc. 1, pg. 1). That is, the Circuit Court of Perry County, on its own motion,
considered his fitness to stand trial under 725 ILCS 5/104-10 et seq. (Doc. 1, pgs. 2-3). On
May 3, 2024, after a fitness hearing under section 104-16, Petitioner was found unfit to
stand trial based on the report of Dr. Daniel Cuneo. (Doc. 1, pgs. 1-4). Again, as of that
date, Petitioner was represented by Mr. Campanella for the purpose of assessing his
fitness to stand trial. (Doc. 1, pg. 4). Also, the record indicates the parties stipulated to Dr.
Cuneo’s report, which formed the basis for the finding of unfitness. (Doc. 1, pg. 2).
However, Petitioner now explains, “I made a special appearance…to object to a
fitness hearing…, which should have been on arraignment.” (Doc. 1, pg. 1). Petitioner
further explains, “I planned on challenging jurisdiction[] because the record does not
show that a grand jury had been properly summoned or empaneled.” (Doc. 1, pg. 1).
Now, the appropriate vehicle for a state pretrial detainee to challenge his or her
detention is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Jackson v.
Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 488 (1973); U.S. ex rel. Parish v. Elrod, 589 F.2d 327, 329 (7th Cir.
1979)). A pretrial detainee, like Petitioner, is not in custody pursuant to the judgment of
a state court, so relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is not yet available. Id. (citing Jacobs v.
McCaughtry, 251 F.3d 596, 597-98 (7th Cir. 2001)). However, even in the context of § 2241,
federal courts must abstain from interfering with state court criminal proceedings that
involve important state interests if the state court provides an opportunity to raise the
federal claims and no exceptional circumstances exist. Olsson v. Curran, 328 Fed. App’x
334, 335 (7th Cir. May 7, 2009) (quoting Stroman Realty, Inc., v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658, 662
(7th Cir.2007); citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971)); accord Jones v. Granite City
Police Dep’t, No. 22-cv-1656, 2022 WL 16908662, *1 (S.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2022).
Exceptions to the above legal principles exist for state pretrial detainees raising
speedy trial and double jeopardy claims, which could become moot, after they exhaust
their state-court remedies. Olsson, 328 Fed. App’x at 335 (citing Braden, 410 U.S. at 489-
92; Younger, 401 U.S. at 49; Stroman Realty, Inc., 505 F.3d at 662; Neville v. Cavanagh, 611
F.2d 673, 675 (7th Cir.1979); In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Massachusetts Trial
Court, 218 F.3d 11, 19 (1st Cir. 2000)); Jones, 2022 WL 16908662 at *1; see also Mays v. Dart,
453 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1088 (N.D. Ill. 2020) (“Although there are exceptions, ‘the hurdle is
high.’ ”). To exhaust state court remedies, a petitioner must give the state courts one full
opportunity to resolve constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the
appellate review process, including by filing a petition for discretionary review with the
state’s highest court. Seger v. Dep’t of Human Servs., No. 24-cv-1057, 2024 WL 2884504, *1
(S.D. Ill. May 13, 2024) (quoting O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)).
Here, it is undisputed that Petitioner, a pretrial detainee, is not subject to an Illinois
judgment related to the criminal offenses charged in the Information. Also, Petitioner has
not shown that he has no opportunity to raise the instant claims in the state court or that
exceptional circumstances now warrant consideration of those claims by this Court.
Therefore, the Court cannot interfere with the state criminal proceedings. It must, instead,
abstain from considering Petitioner’s claims. Further, the Court notes that Petitioner does
not raise an issue that qualifies as an exception to the exhaustion requirement, i.e., a
speedy trial or a double jeopardy issue. In any event, Petitioner has in no way sought to
exhaust his state court remedies, despite the fact that “[a]n order finding the defendant
unfit is a final order for purposes of appeal by the state or the defendant.” 725 ILCS 5/104-
16(e); see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 604(e) (“The defendant or the State may appeal to the Appellate
Court from an order holding the defendant unfit to stand trial or be sentenced.”).
Finally, for the reasons explained above, and because this Court lacks jurisdiction
over state criminal matters, the Motion at Doc. 4 is DENIED. See U.S. v. Brown, 58 F. Supp.
3d 115, 120-21 (D.C. 2014) (citing Beal v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Corp., 312 U.S. 45, 49-50
(1941); Jerome v. U.S., 318 U.S. 101, 104-05 (1943); U.S. v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 32-34 (1812)).
For these reasons, it plainly appears from the petition that petitioner is not entitled
to habeas relief. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District
Courts; accord Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 663 (2005). As such, the Petition is DISMISSED
without prejudice. See Seger, 2024 WL 2884504, *1-2 (finding, in a case where the
petitioner claimed his rights were violated by the state court’s order of detainment and
hospitalization at a mental health center for a fitness evaluation, that the petitioner
acknowledged he did not seek an appeal or review of the trial court’s actions, such that
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus had to be dismissed without prejudice for the
failure to exhaust state court remedies). The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to enter
judgment accordingly and to close the case. The Court declines to issue a certificate of
appealability, as no reasonable jurist would disagree with its procedural ruling. See Slack
v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (“When the district court denies a habeas petition on
procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a
COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right
and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct
in its procedural ruling.”); accord Peterson v. Douma, 751 F.3d 524, 530-31 (2014).
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2024
s/ David W. Dugan
__________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge