Wexler v. Municipality of Anchorage
Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:21-cv-00059-RRB |
Parties | DEMION C. WEXLER, Petitioner, v. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE, Respondent. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Alaska |
Demion C. Wexler, representing himself from the Anchorage Correctional Complex, where he is housed as a pretrial detainee, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and an Application to Waive Prepayment of the $5.00 Filing Fee.2
The Court takes judicial notice3 that, on April 6, 2021, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the State of Alaska issued Special Order 8259, allowing for"misdemeanor trials [to] resume on April 19, 2021."4 The public record shows that Mr. Wexler has been charged with misdemeanors involving firearms and alcohol, as well as six additional charges for violating conditions of release, after being granted release on bail.5
After screening the Petition, as required by federal law,6 the Court dismissed Mr. Wexler's case without prejudice,7 so that Mr. Wexler may continue to make his arguments and assert appropriate claims in his state court proceedings and on appeal.8 The Court explained that it only may address Mr. Wexler's speedy trialclaim after he fully exhausts the available state court remedies,9 and upon a showing that this Court should not abstain from addressing his claims.10
The Order of Dismissal was issued on March 30, 2021, and on April 7, 2021, the Court received a Motion to Dismiss/Vacate Indictment from Mr. Wexler.11 In that Motion, Mr. Wexler requests an "order dismissing . . . the [state] cases under Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."12 The Federal Rules, however, govern federal rather than state cases.13 If Mr. Wexler wishes to move for dismissal of his state criminal charges, he must do that in his state cases, usingstate rules.14 He may also, in those cases, make arguments under federal constitutional law, as it applies to the states.15
Mr. Wexler requests "a compassionate dismissal" of the state charges against him.16 But as explained in the Order of Dismissal,17 federal courts do not order that state charges be dismissed.18
The Court may only address Mr. Wexler's speedy trial claim upon a showing that this Court should not abstain from addressing his claim, and after he fully exhausts his available state court remedies.19
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Motion at Docket 7 is DENIED.
2. This case is CLOSED.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 14th day of April, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
1. The proper respondent in a habeas proceeding is the petitioner's custodian, not a city or state government. See, e.g., Rumsfield v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-36 (2004). But that issue need not be fully addressed in this dismissal.
2. Dockets 1, 4; Municipality of Anchorage v. Damion Charles Wexler, Alaska District Court Case Nos. 3AN-19-02245CR, 3AN-20-03181CR.
3. 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.
4. http://www.courts.alaska.gov/covid19/index.htm#socj, (Special Order of the Chief Justice No. 8259 at 1-2) () ; see also State v. Baker, 425 P.3d 210, 212 (Alaska Ct. App. 2018) ().
5. See https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/searchresults, 3AN-19-02245CR, 3AN-20-03181CR.
6. Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts. The same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2255 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
7. Docket 5.
8. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) ( ) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc).
9. See, e.g., Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6-7 (1951) () (citation omitted); Webb v. Simpson, Case No. 3:19-CV-5561-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 589818 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2020) (slip op.) () .
10. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-31 (1972); McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003); Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 766-67 (9th Cir. 2018)).
11. Dockets 5, 7.
12. Docket 7 at 2.
13. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 1(a)(1) ().
14. See AK R RCRP 1 ().
15. See, e.g., State v. Wright, 404 P.3d 166, 170 (Alaska 2017) ( ).
16. Docket 7 at 3.
17. Docket 5.
18. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973) () (citation omitted); compare United States v. Olsen, No. SACR 17-00076-CJC, 2020 WL 6145206, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2020) (), appeal filed 11/13/20, 9th Cir. No. 20-50329, 2020 WL 6145206.
19. See, e.g., Stack, 342 U.S. at 6-7 () (citation omitted); Webb v. Simpson, Case No. 3:19-CV-5561-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 589818 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2020) (slip op.) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial