Free Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv—00024-GIVIS Document 2 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHARLES MORGAN )
Petitioner, j
v. j Civ. A. No. 06-24-GMS
RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, Warden, and j
CARL C. DANBERG, Attomey )
General of the State of Delaware, )
Respondents. j
O R D E R
Ho
At Wilmington this L day of April, 2006;
IT IS ORDERED that:
l. Petitioner Charles Morgan’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state
remedies. (D.I. l.) In his petition, Morgan concedes that he has not yet been convicted of any
crime. A petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief unless he has exhausted state remedies
for his habeas claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(I)(A). Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), a
federal district court can only entertain a habeas petition in behalf of a person in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court. See also Rule l, 2, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Therefore, because
Morgan is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, and he has failed to exhaust state

Case 1:06-cv—00024-Gl\/IS Document 2 Filed 04/05/2006 Page 2 of 2
remedies, the court will summarily dismiss Morgan’s petition.' See Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §
2254 (a federal district court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition when “it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to
re1ief."). Morgan can re-file his habeas petition once his state court proceedings are final and he
has exhausted state remedies. See Stewart v. Martinez- Villareal, 523 U.S. 637, 644-45
(1998)(holding that a petition filed after the initial filing was dismissed as premature will not be
barred as a "second or successive" petition).
2. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
United States v. Eyer, 113 F.3d 470 (3d Cir. 1997); 3rd Cir. Local Appellate Rule 22.2 (2000).
3. The clerk of the court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Morgan and to the
respondents.
UNITQD STA 11ES DIgTR1C lJUDGE
'The court acknowledges that claim B in Morgan’s form petition may be liberally
construed as asserting a pre-trial claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Nevertheless, summary
dismissal of this claim is appropriate because the face of Morgan’s petition clearly indicates that
he is not entitled to relief. First, by asking the court to dismiss all claims pending against him,
Morgan is attempting to abort a state criminal proceeding rather than attempting to correct a
constitutional violation. See Braden v. 30"' Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 4-10 U.S. 484
(1973); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 443 (3d Cir. 1975). Second, Morgan’s petition fails
to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances justifying the court’s interference with a pending
state court proceeding without having first exhausted state remedies. Moore, 515 F.2d at 443.
2