United States District Court, D. Maryland
Xinis, United States District Judge.
October 17, 2016, Raymond Drumgoole, a detainee at the Jail
Industries Building in Baltimore, Maryland, filed a document
challenging the legality of his confinement. ECF No. 1. He
alleges that there is insufficient probable cause to
“support the fact that a crime is or will be
committed.” He further raises a naked assertion that
the “exclusionary rule” under the Fourth
Amendment and his rights under
“Miranda” have been violated. Id., pp. 3-4.
On October 25, 2016, Drumgoole filed a document construed as
a supplemental petition for habeas corpus relief. ECF No. 2.
He again challenges the legality of his confinement, but now
asks that his charges be dismissed based upon his failure to
appear at his preliminary hearing/arraignment on August 4,
2016 and to be served with a copy of the indictment.
Drumgoole claims that his right to a fair trial has been
violated. He asserts that his due process rights have been
violated in that judicial and prosecutorial misconduct has
occurred and he has received ineffective assistance of
Maryland Judiciary Case Search website confirms that on
August 2, 2016, a charging document was filed accusing
Drumgoole of firearm possession with a felony conviction,
illegal possession of a firearm, handgun, and illegal
possession of ammunition counts. State v. Drumgoole,
Criminal Case No. 116215005 (Circuit Court for Baltimore
City) (copy attached). See
www.casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry. He is
currently awaiting trial on all charges.
extent that Drumgoole seeks federal court intervention
associated with his pending state criminal charges, his case
will be construed as a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for
habeas corpus relief and dismissed. Absent 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). The abstention
doctrine of Younger establishes that under
principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should
not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at
44. 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 Fed.Appx. 814, 816
(11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
pre-trial habeas relief is only available if a petitioner has
exhausted state court remedies and Aspecial 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 which would
protect a petitioner's constitutional rights without
pre-trial intervention. Moore v. DeYoung, 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
is 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.
has raised no exceptional circumstances for interfering with
the Baltimore City criminal case at this time. He may raise
his constitutional claims in state court. A separate Order
follows dismissing this case without prejudice.
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. 2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000). Drumgoole has not made the required showing
and the court declines to issue a certificate of
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1966).