KING

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA (LEE COUNTY)

Respondent. /

OPINION AND ORDER1

Before the Court is Petitioner Sammy Lee King’s handwritten Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed July 31, 2020. (Doc. 1).

Petitioner filed the Petition while a pretrial detainee being held in the Lee County Jail. King challenges his state charges (in case number 19-CF-19094), claiming officials failed to establish probable cause within twentyfour hours and he was not taken to a first appearance in a timely manner. The state court docket reflects King’s criminal case remains pending and a plea hearing is scheduled for August 12, 2020.2 As a preliminary matter, the Petition is not cognizable under § 2254 because, as a pretrial detainee, Worley is not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F. 3d 1049, 1059 (11th Cir. 2003).

Consequently, because King is a pretrial detainee, the Court construes the Petition as

Nonetheless, King is not entitled to relief under § 2241 because he does not allege or demonstrate that he has exhausted his claims in state court. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 79 (2005). Notably, federal

habeas relief is not intended as a “pre-trial motion forum for state prisoners.” Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 493 (1973). Further, principles of equity, comity, and federalism require the Court to abstain from interfering in state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971) (“absent extraordinary circumstances” federal court should not enjoin state criminal proceedings). King provides no reasons for this Court to overlook the abstention principle. Nor does he allege any facts that warrant application any exception to the Younger doctrine. See Hughes v. Attorney General of Florida, 377 F. 3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004).3

Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the “district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Because Petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief, the Court must now consider whether he is entitled to a certificate of appealability. It finds that he is not.

Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (“COA”). “A [COA] may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

To make such a showing, Petitioner must demonstrate that “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,” Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that “the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller—El, 537 U.S. at 335-36. Petitioner has not made the requisite showing in these circumstances. Because Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 1. Petitioner's construed Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to deny any pending motions as moot, enter judgment, and close this file.

3. Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 12th day of August 2020.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record