Troy Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC
904 F.3d 244
| 3rd Cir. | 2018Background
- Troy Reese was charged in E.D. Pa. with attempting to induce a minor via interstate commerce (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)), arrested, and subject to a government motion for pretrial detention; a magistrate judge ordered detention.
- In Feb. 2018 Reese filed a separate § 2241 habeas petition challenging the charges, officers’ conduct at arrest/interrogation, and seeking release pending trial; the petition was docketed as a civil case.
- In the underlying criminal case Reese (through counsel) moved for pretrial release; the District Court held a hearing, denied release, and Reese appealed that denial (a separate, pending appeal).
- After denying relief in the criminal case, the District Court dismissed Reese’s § 2241 petition; Reese appealed that dismissal to the Third Circuit.
- The Third Circuit considered whether federal pretrial detainees may seek release under § 2241 or must use the Bail Reform Act procedures, and whether challenges to arrest/indictment belong in habeas before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal pretrial detainee may seek release pending trial via § 2241 habeas | Reese argued § 2241 authorizes habeas relief from unconstitutional pretrial detention and sought release through his petition | Government argued § 2241 is not the proper vehicle; the Bail Reform Act provides the exclusive procedural scheme for pretrial release and appeal | Held: § 2241 is not the proper vehicle for requests for pretrial release; Bail Reform Act procedures govern such relief |
| Whether challenges to validity of charges, arrest, or interrogation may be raised in a pretrial § 2241 petition | Reese challenged probable cause, evidence, and officers’ conduct in the § 2241 petition | Government argued such claims must be resolved through pretrial motions in the criminal case (and, if necessary, appeals) rather than collateral habeas | Held: Claims challenging arrest, interrogation, indictment, or evidence should be raised in the criminal case by pretrial motion; § 2241 is improper absent exceptional circumstances |
| Whether the District Court abused discretion by refusing to hear the § 2241 petition after denying release in the criminal case | Reese asserted the separate habeas action was a proper alternate route to relief after detention | Government and court relied on interests in orderly procedure, exhaustion of criminal remedies, and statutory Bail Reform Act appeal process | Held: No error; district court properly declined to exercise habeas power and dismissed the § 2241 petition |
Key Cases Cited
- Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016 (5th Cir.) (pretrial release claims not cognizable under § 2241)
- United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006 (7th Cir.) (same)
- Government of Virgin Islands v. Bolones, 427 F.2d 1135 (3d Cir.) (pretrial challenges to arrest/ interrogation belong in criminal case via pretrial motions)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (Bail Reform Act is comprehensive scheme for pretrial detention decisions)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (habeas power not always to be exercised; prudential limits)
- Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390 (habeas generally not to be used pretrial absent exceptional circumstances)
- United States v. Addonizio, 442 U.S. 178 (habeas should not substitute for ordinary appeals)