Notestine v. Houser
| Decision Date | 19 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:21-cv-00072-RRB |
| Parties | JONATHAN NOTESTINE, Petitioner, v. EARL HOUSER, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Jonathan Notestine, representing himself from Goose Creek Correctional Center, where he is housed as a pretrial detainee, has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the state court is denying his rights in a criminal case in which he is a defendant.1 Mr. Notestine has also filed an Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs, without providing the required prison trust account statement to show that he is unable to pay the $5.00 filing fee in this case; and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel, also without the required financial affidavit in support.2 More recently, Mr. Notestine filed additional documents, showing his unsuccessful attempts at receiving a speedy trial, in support of his Petition.3
The Court takes judicial notice4 that, on April 6, 2021, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the State of Alaska issued Special Order 8259, stating that 5 The public record shows that among the 25 charges against him, Mr. Notestine has been charged with Class B and Class C felonies, as well as misdemeanors which include violating conditions of release.6 The record also shows that Mr. Notestine was arraigned on November 17, 2020, and has apparently been incarcerated since that time.7
Federal courts have general habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.8 A petitioner may properly challenge state pretrial detention under § 2241.9 But a court must "promptly examine" a habeas petition.10 "If it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion. . ."11
In conducting its review of a self-represented litigant's pleadings, a court must liberally construe the pleadings and give the petitioner the benefit of the doubt.12
A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being detained or held in custody by the government.13 The writ "is a vital 'instrument for the protection of individual liberty' against government power."14
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."15 This habeas statute provides federal courts with general habeas corpus jurisdiction.16 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper avenue for a state prisoner who wishes to challenge his state custody without a state judgment.17 When examining a § 2241 petition from a pretrial detainee claiming a violation of his or her right to a speedy trial, a significant delay in the proceedings must be shown.18Mr. Notestine was arraigned on November 17, 2020, so he appears to have been incarcerated for five months.19
In McNeely v. Blanas,20 the Ninth Circuit found a delay of three years to be substantial, such that prejudice was presumed, triggering an inquiry under Barker v. Wingo.21 The four-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Barker is used to determine whether government delay had abridged a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.22 The factors to be considered in a Barker inquiry include: 23 Clearly, however, at this point, Mr. Notestine has not been incarcerated for a "substantial" time under federal law. And the Covid-19 pandemic creates a valid reason for postponing Mr. Notestine's trial during these five months.24
For relief, Mr. Notestine requests: "Dismissal of charges due to obstruction of justice of our constitutional rights.25 The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments bar pretrial detention unless detention is necessary to serve a compelling government interest.26 Thus, although a state may "impose conditions on an arrestee's release, such as bail ... [b]ail set at a figure higher than an amount reasonably calculated to fulfill [its] purpose [of assuring the presence of the accused at trial] is 'excessive' under the Eighth Amendment."27
Mr. Notestine's request that the Court require charges against him in the state courts be dismissed is not appropriate.28 A speedy trial claim may bereviewed under § 2241 if a pretrial detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges.29 Thus, although a federal court can order a state court to bring a petitioner to trial, federal courts do not order that state charges be dismissed.30 The Court will not, therefore, address the merits of any underlying charges against Mr. Notestine, or order that any state criminal charges against Mr. Notestine be dismissed.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has directly addressed abstention, regarding the claim of a state court violating the right to a speedy trial, explaining:
Younger does not "require[ ] a district court to abstain from hearing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention in state court" where (1) the procedure challenged in the petition is distinct from the underlying criminal prosecution and the challenge would not interfere with the prosecution, or (2) full vindication of the petitioner's pretrial rights requires intervention before trial.34
The State of Alaska has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Mr. Notestine's criminal cases in state court remain ongoing. Mr. Notestine's allegation, that he is being denied his right to a speedy trial in state court, should be addressed in his state court criminal proceedings, where he may also continue to address the issue of bail.35 This Court should not interfere with the trial court's fact-finding responsibilities and legal decisions in that case, unless "full vindication of the petitioner's pretrial rights requires intervention before trial."36 This does not appear to be such a case.
Exhaustion is required under common law before bringing a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.37 Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement for a petition brought under § 2241, principles of federalism and comity require the court to abstain until all state criminal proceedings are completed, and the petitioner exhausts the available state judicial remedies, unless extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial are found. A violation of the right to a speedy trial is not, alone, an extraordinary circumstance warranting federal intervention.38
The Court may only address Mr. Notestine's speedy trial claim after he fully exhausts the available state court remedies,39 and upon a showing that this Court should not abstain from addressing his claims.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
2. The Application to Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs, at Docket 3, is DENIED.40
3. The Motion for Appointment of Counsel, at Docket 4, is DENIED as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter Judgment accordingly.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 19th day of April, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
1. Docket 1; State of Alaska v. Jonathan Robert Notestine, Alaska Superior Court Case No. 3AN-20-08850CR.
2. Dockets 3, 4.
3. Docket 5.
4. Judicial notice is the "court's acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party's proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact. . .." Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (E.D. Cal. 2012) () (citing Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist., 498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007) (additional citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
5. http://www.courts.alaska.gov/covid19/index.htm#socj, Special Order 8259 at 1; see also State v. Baker, 425 P.3d 210, 212 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018) ().
6. See https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/searchresults, 3AN-20-08850CR.
7. See id.
10. Rule 4(b), Rules...
To continue reading
Request your trial