United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ali Bailey, a federal inmate currently confined at the United
States Penitentiary located in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, filed
a "Petition for Writ of Error" alleging his right
to a speedy trial has been violated as he has not been tried
for warrant #855845B6 issued by the Baltimore City Police
Department (BCPD) in October of 1993 and executed on January
6, 1994. ECF 1. The pleading was construed as Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
~2241 (ECF 1 & 3) and Bailey was directed to
supplement the filing by indicating whether the detainer he
challenged was for an untried indictment and whether he had
sought relief under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act
("IAD".. ECF 3.
filed a supplemental petition acknowledging that the detainer
is a warrant and that he has not pursued his claims under the
IAD or in any State of Maryland court. ECF 4, pp. 2-3. Bailey
requests an order dismissing the warrant filed by the BCPD
and dismissing the detainer. ECF 1, p. 6; ECF 4, p. 8.
Respondents move to dismiss the petition on the basis that
Bailey failed to exhaust his available administrative and
state court remedies. ECF 21 & 23. For the reasons that
follow the Petition shall be DISMISSED without
matter jurisdiction of a 92241 habeas corpus petition lies in
the federal district court where a petitioner is incarcerated
or in the federal district court where a petitioner's
custodian is located. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 488-89 (1973). Bailey
is confined in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, and his custodian, or
the person who has the day-to-day responsibility for his
custody, would be the warden at the United States
Penitentiary-Lewisburg. Therefore, this Court finds that
jurisdiction of the instant action lies in Pennsylvania, not
Court notes that Bailey has failed to exhaust his
administrative and state court remedies. Bailey is advised
that the IAD allows a prisoner incarcerated in one state the
right to demand the disposition of any untried indictment,
information or complaint that is the basis of a detainer
lodged against him by another state. Carchman v.
Nash, 473, U.S. 716, 718-19 (1985). When a detainer is
lodged against a prisoner, he may make a formal request for
disposition of the charges, and if not brought to trial
within a specified time after the filing of the request for
disposition, the charges may be dismissed by the court in
which they are pending. Id. at 720-721.
a petitioner seeking relief under 9 2241 must first exhaust
available state court remedies. See Braden, 410 U.S.
at 490-91. In cases involving detainers for untried criminal
charges this means, at a minimum, a) making a formal request
for disposition under either the IAD or Intrastate Detainer
Act; 2) if not brought to trial within the specified time,
filing a motion to dismiss in the state court proceedings;
and 3) if an appeal is allowed by state law of the ruling on
the motion to dismiss, appealing that, decision to the
highest state court with jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
See Dunlap v. 230 District Court, 701 F.Supp. 752,
753 (D. Nev. 1988) (petitioner seeking dismissal of charges
for violation of IAD must first exhaust state court
remedies); Brown v. Keohane, 475 F.Supp. 943 (E.D.
Va. 1979). Here Bailey failed to challenge the detainer via
the IAD (ECF 21, Ex. 2) and failed to challenge the warrant
or detainer in state court. ECF 21, Ex.1.
foregoing reasons, the Petition shall be dismissed without
Bailey titled his case as one brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~1651(a), the All Writs Act. The Act
permits "courts established by Act of Congress" to
issue "all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of
their respective jurisdictions." 28 U.S.C. ~1651(a). The
Act is a "residual source of authority to issue
writs" not otherwise covered by statute. Carlisle v.
United States, 517 U.S. 416, 428 (1996). The Act does
not confer jurisdiction. Instead, "a court's power
to issue any form of relief... is contingent on that
court's subject-matter jurisdiction over the case or
controversy." United States v. Denedo, 556 U.S.
991 (2009). The nature of the relief sought is Baileyss
Petition is incongruous to the caption given by him. As such,
the Court construed the Petition, filed by a federal inmate,
challenging a state detainer, as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Petitioner filed a Motion or Judgment
of Acquittal (ECF 14) invoking the federal five-year statute
of limitations for trial of non-capital offenses. As Bailey
challenges a state court ...