Jones v. Lucas
2:21-cv-00011
E.D. Wis.Sep 8, 2021Background
- Petitioner Ronald E. Jones filed a § 2241 habeas petition on Jan 4, 2021, alleging a Fourth Amendment unconstitutional arrest and a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation.
- Arrest warrant and complaint were filed July 2, 2019 in Milwaukee County (2019CF2885); multiple continuances followed.
- Jury trial was set for May 2020, continued several times because of COVID-19 and negotiations; a jury trial was later scheduled for Jan 19, 2021.
- On the scheduled trial date, Jones entered a plea.
- The district court concluded Jones had not exhausted his state-court remedies and that his speedy-trial claim was rendered moot by the plea; it denied the § 2241 petition, denied IFP as moot, dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust, and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jones may obtain federal § 2241 relief while state proceedings remain available | Jones contends his continued confinement violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments and seeks federal review | State/Respondent argues federal courts must abstain; Jones failed to exhaust state remedies | Court held Jones failed to exhaust; dismissed without prejudice under abstention/exhaustion principles |
| Whether the speedy-trial claim remains live after Jones accepted a plea | Jones says trial delay (COVID-19) violated his speedy-trial right | Respondent: plea resolves/moots the speedy-trial claim | Court held the speedy-trial claim was moot after the plea |
| Whether to grant leave to proceed IFP | Jones moved to proceed without prepayment | Court treated the motion as moot after dismissal | Court denied IFP as moot |
| Whether to issue a certificate of appealability (COA) | Jones would seek appellate review | Court: no substantial showing of a constitutional violation or debatable procedural error | Court denied a COA |
Key Cases Cited
- Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Martinez, 505 F.3d 658 (7th Cir. 2007) (abstention and limits on federal interference in ongoing state prosecutions)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts must not enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Olsson v. Curran, [citation="328 F. App'x 334"] (7th Cir. 2009) (§ 2241 relief for pretrial detainees is limited and requires exhaustion)
- Farrell v. Lane, 939 F.2d 409 (7th Cir. 1991) (state courts must have full and fair opportunity to review federal claims before federal habeas review)
- Richmond v. Scibana, 387 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. 2004) (common-law exhaustion rule applies to § 2241 actions)
- Lieberman v. Thomas, 505 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2007) (exhaustion requires presentation of the claim to the state’s highest court)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971) (requirement to present federal claims to the state courts to exhaust remedies)