James Russell Johnson v. State of Florida
32 F.4th 1092
| 11th Cir. | 2022

Background

  • James Johnson was arrested in July 2019 (drug/ammunition) and again on March 13, 2020 (new drug/firearm charges); he filed pro se Florida Rule 3.191 speedy-trial demands and later another while represented.
  • The Florida Supreme Court issued administrative orders in March–June 2020 temporarily suspending Rule 3.191 time limits because of COVID-19 and instructed courts to consider constitutional rights when remote proceedings were impossible.
  • Johnson pursued relief in Florida courts on the state-rule ground only; state trial and appellate courts denied his rule-based relief. He was granted a medical furlough in December 2020 and remains released; his state case is in discovery.
  • While his second state speedy-trial demand was pending, Johnson filed a pro se federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation and seeking dismissal of charges.
  • The federal district court dismissed the § 2241 petition for (1) failure to exhaust state remedies and (2) Younger abstention; Johnson appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which affirmed.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Johnson fairly presented a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim to state courts (exhaustion) Johnson contends COVID-related suspension made state remedies inadequate and he need not exhaust; he cited speedy-trial concerns repeatedly in state filings. State (and district) argue Johnson presented only Florida Rule 3.191 claims and never fairly presented a federal Sixth Amendment claim to state courts. Held: Not exhausted. Johnson did not fairly present a Sixth Amendment claim to Florida courts.
Whether exhaustion was futile because of COVID-19 disruptions Johnson argues state courts were unlikely to address Sixth Amendment issues during pandemic, so exhaustion would be futile. State argues Florida courts resolved his rule claim promptly and had authority to address constitutional claims; no showing of unreasonable state inaction. Held: Futility not shown; exhaustion required.
Whether Younger abstention bars federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings Johnson says Younger doesn’t apply because state courts have delayed or are incapable of fairly adjudicating Sixth Amendment issues during COVID-19. State argues Younger applies: ongoing judicial proceedings, important state interest, and adequate forum to raise constitutional claims; no special circumstances. Held: Younger abstention applies; federal court must not enjoin or dismiss state prosecution pretrial absent special circumstances, which are not present.
Whether federal habeas under § 2241 may be used now to obtain dismissal of state charges for alleged speedy-trial violation Johnson seeks dismissal of charges via § 2241 because of indefinite COVID-related delay. State contends § 2241 dismissal is improper pretrial remedy where state forum for constitutional claims exists and Younger applies. Held: § 2241 dismissal denied; pretrial habeas relief inappropriate absent exhaustion or special circumstances.

Key Cases Cited

  • Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (abstention doctrine: federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings)
  • Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (exhaustion and federalism rationale for state courts first addressing federal claims)
  • Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U.S. 27 (2004) (claim must be fairly presented to state courts to satisfy exhaustion)
  • Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U.S. 738 (1975) (federal courts cannot presume state courts would decide differently on constitutional issues)
  • Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (state courts may reconsider and decide constitutional arguments on reflection)
  • Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d 1280 (5th Cir. 1976) (pretrial federal habeas dismissal of state charges for speedy-trial violations is generally not a "special circumstance")
  • Pompey v. Broward Cty., 95 F.3d 1543 (11th Cir. 1996) (Younger requires showing state procedural bar to raising constitutional claims to avoid abstention)
  • Kelley v. Sec'y for Dep't of Corr., 377 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2004) (fair presentation requirement for exhaustion)
  • McNair v. Campbell, 416 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2005) (clarifying fair presentation standard)
  • Gates v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2018) (alleged speedy-trial denial not a proper basis to enjoin state prosecution)
Read the full case