BINGHAM

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Petitioner Wesley A. Bingham’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Doc. 1). Bingham filed the Petition while a pretrial detainee in the Lee County Jail. He challenges his detention on state charges in Florida’s 20th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Lee County, case number 2020-cf-16218, claiming his attorneys have not provided him with discovery. The state court docket reflects Bingham’s criminal case remains pending. As a preliminary matter, the Petition is not cognizable under § 2254 because, as a pretrial detainee, Bingham is not “in custody pursuant to the

detainee, the Court construes the Petition as being brought under § 2241. Medberry, 351 F. 3d at 1060 (discussing the differences between § 2254 and § 2241 and applying § 2241 to pretrial detainees); see also Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F. 3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004). Nonetheless, Bingham is not entitled to relief

under § 2241 because he does not allege or demonstrate that he has exhausted his claims in state court. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005). Notably, federal habeas relief is not intended as a “pre-trial motion forum for state prisoners.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973). Further, principles of equity, comity, and federalism require the Court to abstain from interfering in state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971) (stating “absent extraordinary circumstances”

federal court should not enjoin state criminal proceedings). Bingham provides no reasons for this Court to overlook the abstention principle. Nor does he allege any facts that warrant application any exception to the Younger doctrine. See Hughes v. Attorney Gen. of Fla., 377 F. 3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th

Cir. 2004).2

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Because Bingham is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court must now consider whether he is entitled to a certificate of appealability. It

finds that he is not. A prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”).

“A [COA] may issue...only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make such a showing, Bingham must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,”

Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further,’” Miller–El, 537 U.S. at 335-36. Bingham has not made the requisite showing.

occur, or (3) there is no adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.” Ibid. Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Wesley A. Bingham’s Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate all pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment for Respondent and against Petitioner, and close this file. 3. Bingham is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 28, 2022.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record