Hunt v. Lee County Circuit Court
2:17-cv-00012
E.D. Ark.May 10, 2017Background
- Kenneth Hunt, a pretrial detainee in Lee County, Arkansas, filed a habeas petition (construed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241) challenging the rescission of a state-court appointment of counsel and other state-court actions.
- Hunt appealed the denial of in forma pauperis status to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which denied his pro se petition and ordered a $165 filing fee; Hunt interpreted that order as dismissal of his appeal.
- He seeks multiple forms of relief: reinstatement of appointed counsel, injunctions preventing the state court from proceeding, removal of the state judge, orders directed to the county clerk and prosecutor, and other related relief.
- The magistrate judge reviewed the petition for preliminary sufficiency and noted Hunt had not paid the federal filing fee.
- The court concluded Hunt had not exhausted available state remedies nor shown extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention in an ongoing pretrial state prosecution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal habeas relief is appropriate to reinstate state-appointed counsel and halt state proceedings | Hunt contends his appointment of counsel was rescinded unlawfully and federal court should reinstate counsel and stop the state trial | State has available procedures; federal courts should not intervene in ongoing state prosecutions absent exhaustion or extraordinary circumstances | Dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies; no extraordinary circumstances shown |
| Whether pretrial habeas under § 2241 may be used to resolve these claims now | Hunt treats petition as proper § 2241 relief for pretrial detention and related claims | Federal courts generally require exhaustion and should decline jurisdiction over pretrial claims resolvable by state courts | Petition construed under § 2241 but dismissed for lack of exhaustion |
| Whether the court should appoint counsel or grant injunctive relief in federal court to address multiple state-court personnel and procedure complaints | Hunt asks the court to appoint federal counsel to amend petition and to enjoin state actors (clerk, prosecutor, judge) | Federal injunctive relief is improper where state remedies exist and no extraordinary circumstances are shown | Requests for appointment of counsel and injunctive relief denied as premature; case dismissed |
| Whether a Certificate of Appealability should issue | Implicitly, Hunt might seek appellate review of denial | Certificate of Appealability is not warranted given dismissal for procedural (non-merits) reasons | COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Martin, 131 S. Ct. 1120 (2011) (federal habeas exhaustion principle; state courts get first chance to correct alleged federal violations)
- Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634 (8th Cir.) (pretrial § 2241 petitions challenging pending state prosecutions require exhaustion)
- Davis v. Mueller, 643 F.2d 521 (8th Cir.) (same, declining federal intervention during pending state prosecution)
- Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.) (federal courts should decline jurisdiction over pretrial habeas if state procedures can resolve issues)
- Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354 (8th Cir.) (federal courts should not interfere with pending state judicial processes absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Stringer v. Williams, 161 F.3d 259 (5th Cir.) (pretrial habeas properly brought under § 2241)