United States District Court, D. Maryland
K. Bredar United States District Judge
16, 2016, the court received a petition for writ of habeas
corpus from Anthony Lloyd (hereinafter referred to as
“Lloyd”), who is confined at the Maryland
Correctional Training Center in Hagerstown, Maryland. ECF 1.
Lloyd claims that his state court criminal conviction was
overturned by the state post-conviction court, and he has
remained in state custody awaiting re-trial. ECF 1. Lloyd was
directed to supplement his petition, which he has done. ECF 2
& 3. Because he appears indigent, his motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 4) shall be granted. His cause
of action, however, construed as a hybrid 28 U.S.C. §
2241 petition and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, shall be
states that on February 23, 2015, post-conviction relief was
granted and his conviction vacated. Thereafter, his attorney
wrote to Assistant States Attorney Garrett Glennon advising
him to make arrangements for Lloyd to be transported from the
state Division of Correction facility to the Baltimore County
Detention Center so a pretrial bail hearing could be held.
Lloyd states that he has not been transferred, nor has a bail
hearing been held. He complains that he should have been
transferred to the detention center and provided a bail
hearing while awaiting his retrial. ECF 3, pp. 5 & 6.
Lloyd alleges that Glennon has engaged in prosecutorial
misconduct and legal malpractice by not having him
transferred. Id., p. 6.
Maryland Judiciary Case Search website confirms that on April
13, 2009, Lloyd was charged in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County with robbery. See State v. Lloyd,
Criminal No. 03K09001918 (Circuit Court for Baltimore
www.casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry. On or
about January 5, 2010, Lloyd pled guilty. He was sentenced on
March 26, 2010, to a 25-year term of incarceration to be
served without parole. As a result of post-conviction
proceedings, the criminal judgment was vacated. Id.
Lloyd's trial is currently scheduled for October 3, 2016.
extent that Lloyd seeks federal court intervention in his
pending state criminal retrial, his case is construed as a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for habeas corpus relief and
dismissed. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, a
federal court must not interfere with ongoing state criminal
proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,
53-54 (1971); Cinema Blue of Charlotte, Inc., v.
Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49, 50-53 (4th Cir. 1989) (district
courts should abstain from constitutional challenges to state
judicial proceedings if the federal claims have been or could
have been presented in an ongoing state judicial proceeding).
Abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required
if the proceedings are ongoing, implicate important state
interests, afford an adequate opportunity to raise the
federal questions, and the federal relief sought would
interfere in some manner with the state court litigation
presented. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State
Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Brewsome v.
Broward County Pub. Defenders, 304 F.App'x 814, 816
(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). In the pre-trial context,
federal courts must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over
a claim that may be resolved through trial on the merits or
by other state procedures available for review of the claim.
See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court,
410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973).
pre-trial habeas relief is only available if a petitioner has
exhausted state court remedies and "special
circumstances" justify federal review. See Dickerson
v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 226-29 (5th Cir. 1987).
While the phrase “special circumstances” lacks
any definition, courts have looked to whether procedures
exist that would protect a petitioner's constitutional
rights without pre-trial intervention. Moore v. De
Young, 515 F.2d 437, 449 (3d Cir. 1975). Where a threat
to the petitioner's rights may be remedied by an
assertion of an appropriate defense in state court, no
special circumstances are shown. Id.; see also
Drayton v. Hayes, 589 F.2d 117, 121 (2d Cir. 1979)
(double jeopardy claim entitled to pre-trial habeas
intervention since “the very constitutional right
claimed ... would be violated” if petitioner were
forced to go to trial). Where the right may be adequately
preserved by orderly post-trial relief, special circumstances
are likewise nonexistent. Moore, 515 F.2d at 449.
Lloyd's claim regarding his bail status is subject to the
exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The
exhaustion requirement applies to petitions filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Francis v. Henderson, 425
U.S. 536, 538 (1976) (“This Court has long recognized
that in some circumstances considerations of comity and
concerns for the orderly administration of criminal justice
require a federal court to forgo the exercise of its habeas
corpus power.”). Thus, before filing a federal habeas
petition, a petitioner must exhaust each claim presented by
pursuing remedies available in state court. See Rose v.
Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 (1982). The claim must be
fairly presented to the state courts; this means presenting
both the operative facts and controlling legal principles.
See Baker v. Corcoran, 220 F.3d 276, 289 (4th Cir.
2000) (citations omitted). Exhaustion includes appellate
review in the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and the
Maryland Court of Appeals. See Granberry v. Greer,
481 U.S. 129, 134-35 (1987). Although federal courts can
review state bail orders through habeas corpus after
exhaustion of state remedies, federal intervention in this
discretionary determination is rare, and federal courts
cannot require that state courts give reasons for the denial
of bail. See Jenkins v. Harvey, 634 F.2d 130, 132
(4th Cir. 1980). Thus, while Lloyd has not yet exhausted his
bail claim, it appears unlikely that he would prevail on this
issue even if entitled to adjudicate the claim in this forum.
the habeas corpus claims presented here have not been
exhausted in the state courts, the instant action is
premature. When a district court dismisses a petition for
habeas corpus solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of
appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can
demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid
claim of the denial of a constitutional right' and (2)
‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.'” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684
(4th Cir. ...