Higginson v. Attorney General of the State of Montana
9:25-cv-00086
D. Mont.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Kristofer Brandon Higginson, a pretrial detainee in Missoula County, Montana, filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging improper detention and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Higginson has been incarcerated since January 13, 2025, facing felony burglary and various misdemeanors but has not yet been convicted or sentenced.
- He claims to be confused about the progression and status of his state court proceedings and indicates dissatisfaction with his public defender's conduct.
- Higginson requests that the federal court appoint a new defender and dismiss charges due to prolonged pretrial detention.
- He does not allege to have exhausted available state remedies or pursued relief in state courts before seeking federal intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of federal habeas relief | Federal court should intervene pretrial to correct unlawful detention and ineffective counsel | Exhaustion and comity bar federal intervention before state proceedings conclude | Petition dismissed; federal court abstains |
| Exhaustion of state remedies | Claims extraordinary circumstance and bias justify bypassing state courts | Higginson failed to exhaust state remedies as required | State remedies not exhausted; no intervention |
| Applicability of § 2254 vs. § 2241 | Filed under § 2254, seeking broad habeas relief | Only § 2241 may apply to pretrial detainees | Re-characterized as § 2241, not § 2254 |
| Certificate of Appealability | Substantial showing of constitutional violation made | No substantial showing present | Certificate of appealability denied |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Lambert, 379 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2004) (distinguishing between § 2254 and § 2241 applicability for state prisoners and pretrial detainees)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 (1971) (reaffirming federal abstention in ongoing state proceedings except in cases of irreparable injury)
- Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82 (1971) (federal interference limited to proven bad faith or harassment in state prosecutions)