DEROUSSEAU

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

Petitioner, a Florida pretrial detainee at the Polk County Jail, filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1). Petitioner contends his detainment is unconstitutional because his right to a speedy trial has been violated; he was subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure; and he has received ineffective assistance of counsel. As relief, he seeks dismissal of the charges against him. Discussion As a state pretrial detainee, Petitioner may challenge his confinement as unconstitutional by petitioning for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Stacey v. Warden, Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F. 2d 401, 403 n.1 (11th Cir. 1988) (“Pre-trial habeas petitions . . . are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which applies to persons in custody regardless of whether final judgment has been rendered.”). This Court concludes, however, that the petition should be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine and because Petitioner has not exhausted all available state court remedies.

A. Exhaustion

A federal district court may not grant a § 2241 petition “unless the petitioner has exhausted all available state remedies.” See Georgalis v. Dixon, 776 F. 2d 261, 262

(11th Cir. 1985); see also Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F. 3d 1258, 1262 n.4 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that courts apply the exhaustion requirement to a state pretrial detainee’s § 2241 petition). Petitioner has not exhausted all available state remedies before filing his petition in this Court. Although he recently challenged his detainment by filing a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the state circuit court, the petition

is still pending.¹ Thus, this petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust all available state remedies.

B. Younger doctrine

Even if Petitioner had exhausted all his state remedies, the petition would be dismissed because the Younger abstention doctrine precludes the Court from interfering

with the ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “When a petitioner seeks federal habeas relief prior to a pending state criminal trial

the petitioner must satisfy the ‘Younger abstention hurdles’ before the federal courts can grant such relief.” Hughes v. Att’y Gen. of Fla., 377 F. 3d 1258, 1262 (11th Cir. 2004). “[I]n the interests of comity, federal courts abstain from becoming involved in [ ] state court proceeding[s] with few exceptions. ‘Proper respect for the ability of state courts to resolve federal questions presented in state-court litigation mandates that the federal

court stay its hand,’ Pennzoil v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S.¹, 14 (1987); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).” Solomon v. Manuel, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125689, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2011). Absent “extraordinary circumstances, a federal court must abstain from deciding issues implicated in an ongoing criminal proceeding in state court.” Thompson v. Wainwright, 714 F. 2d 1495, 1503 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Younger).

Under Younger, federal courts should abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief affecting a state criminal prosecution absent: (1) evidence of bad faith prosecution, (2) irreparable injury if abstention is not exercised by the federal court, or (3) the absence of an adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised. Hughes, 377 F. 3d at 1263 n.6 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 53-54).

Petitioner does not allege facts showing bad faith prosecution, irreparable injury, or the absence of an adequate state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised. Thus, he has failed to present facts that warrant this Court interfering in the normal functioning of Florida’s criminal process.

Accordingly: 1. The petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice under the Younger abstention doctrine and for failure to exhaust all available state remedies. 2. Petitioner is DENIED a certificate of appealability (“COA”) because he cannot show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 478 (2000). Because Petitioner is not entitled to a COA, he may not appeal in forma pauperis.

3. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 27, 2023.

C hakor oe c ards Mon TL ol ell Charlene Edwards Honeywell United States District Judge

Copy to: Petitioner, pro se