Milbourne v. United States
3:25-cv-00719
M.D. Penn.Apr 23, 2025Background
- Victor Milbourne is a federal pretrial detainee awaiting trial in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on charges including wire fraud, theft of government funds, false statements, and bankruptcy fraud.
- He filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where he is not confined.
- Milbourne claims he is being unconstitutionally detained by a 'court not of record' and that a 'biased statutory jury' was gathered.
- The Middle District conducted a preliminary review and considered whether it had jurisdiction over the petition.
- The defendants (United States) maintained that pretrial habeas relief is inappropriate under these circumstances, and that relief should be sought through the ongoing criminal case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear § 2241 habeas claim | Milbourne: Court should hear the habeas petition | USA: Proper court is where petitioner confined | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Use of § 2241 for pretrial relief | Milbourne: Can challenge pretrial detention via §2241 | USA: § 2241 not for pretrial challenges | Not proper vehicle for relief |
| Constitutional claims (unlawful detention) | Milbourne: Detention violates constitutional rights | USA: Must pursue claims in pending criminal case | Claims must be raised in criminal case |
| Allegations of jury bias | Milbourne: Challenges jury as biased | USA: Should be addressed via pretrial motions | Raise via standard criminal process |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (habeas petitions must be filed in district of confinement)
- Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390 (regular judicial procedure should be followed in criminal cases; habeas is not for pretrial challenges)
- Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547 (habeas corpus is not a substitute for standard pretrial motions and appeals)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Bail Reform Act is comprehensive scheme for pretrial release)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (habeas should not substitute for appeal and orderly judicial process)