Brar, Navdeep v. Mahoney, David
3:17-cv-00790
W.D. Wis.Jan 5, 2018Background
- Petitioner Navdeep Brar filed two 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petitions challenging separate Wisconsin OWI convictions (Dane County 2014CT776; Sauk County 2014CT273).
- Brar raises Fourth Amendment claims (search/seizure and voluntariness/constitutionality of blood draws and manner/place of testing) and related Fourteenth Amendment due-process notice/supervision claims.
- Magistrate Judge Crocker screened the petitions and ordered respondents to answer; respondents did not oppose motions to stay the state sentences pending federal resolution.
- The court considered the § 2251 stay factors (substantiality, likelihood of success, and extraordinary circumstances) and noted Stone v. Powell’s bar on federal review of Fourth Amendment claims unless the state denied a full and fair hearing.
- Given the short jail terms (110 days and 45 days running consecutively) and the realistic prospect Brar would serve them before resolution, the court exercised discretion to stay the state sentences during the federal proceedings.
- The court also held the proper respondents are the county sheriffs (Mahoney and Meister), not the Wisconsin Attorney General, because Brar is "in custody" for habeas purposes and the sheriffs have legal control over his confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to stay state sentences pending § 2254 resolution | Brar sought stays to avoid serving short sentences before habeas adjudication | Respondents did not oppose stays; state judges appeared to stay proceedings | Court granted stays: equitable factors and risk of irretrievable service of sentences favor stay |
| Whether Brar’s Fourth Amendment claims can be reviewed on habeas given Stone v. Powell | Brar contends state courts denied a full and fair hearing, so Stone’s bar does not apply | State relies on Stone to bar federal merits review absent a showing state process was inadequate | Court found Brar’s denial-of-full-and-fair-hearing claim is colorable (not plainly foreclosed) and ordered responses; recognition that Stone creates a high hurdle |
| Whether Brar’s Fourteenth Amendment claims are cognizable and tied to Fourth Amendment analysis | Brar argues due-process notice and supervisory-witness issues impaired relief in state court | State would treat due-process issues as intertwined with Fourth Amendment proceedings and subject to same review limits | Court ordered response to Fourteenth Amendment claims as they are tied into state courts’ Fourth Amendment analyses |
| Proper respondent(s) for petitions | Brar named the sheriffs overseeing the jails where he would serve sentences | Meister argued the AG should be added because Brar is not presently incarcerated | Court held Brar is "in custody" under § 2241(c)(3); sheriffs (Mahoney, Meister) are proper respondents and AG not required |
Key Cases Cited
- McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849 (1994) (§ 2251 stay is discretionary; federal courts weigh stay factors)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims barred where state provided full and fair hearing)
- Ewell v. Toney, 853 F.3d 911 (7th Cir. 2017) (equity, comity, and federalism guide habeas stay decisions)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper habeas respondent is the person with legal control over custody)
- Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345 (1973) (bond conditions can render a person "in custody" for habeas jurisdiction)
- Reimnitz v. State’s Attorney of Cook Cty., 761 F.2d 405 (7th Cir. 1985) (local jail operator/sheriff is proper potential respondent for custody challenges)
- Puchner v. Kruzicki, 918 F. Supp. 1271 (E.D. Wis. 1996) (district court granted stay of state sentence pending federal habeas review)