I was just providing information and wasn't expecting a reply. Delay is a total non-issue.
-- I thought that proceedings in this case were sealed since Ashton is in the juvenile system. --
As I noted before, there are two cases. Ashton's criminal case and Annette's prayer for relief via habeas corpus.
-- Do you have a link to the judge's statement? --
No. I grabbed it from PACER. The interesting parts are reproduced above. I'll post the complete Order below.
-- ... how did you learn that Mrs. Lundeby is appealing the order? --
From the docket sheet for her habeas corpus case, available via PACER.
-- Do you have a link for that too? --
No. I'll post the entries relevant to the taking of an appeal below. In the docket sheet, "AL" is Annette Lundeby, not Ashton Lundeby. "kds" is the clerk who made the docket entry. Numbers appearing in the "Docket Text" column are references to the Docket Numbers (or Document Numbers) assigned to the various papers. I.e., Doc. 7 is the Clerk's Judgment; Doc. 6 is the Order Dismissing the Civil Case; etc.
Date Filed # Docket Text
06/04/2009 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 7 Clerks Judgment,
6 Order dismissing Civil Case by AL.
(kds) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/05/2009 10 Short Record Sent to US Court of Appeals
re 9 Notice of Appeal
(kds) (Entered: 06/05/2009)
06/08/2009 11 USCA Case Number 09-2461 for 9 Notice
of Appeal filed by AL.
(ksc) (Entered: 06/08/2009)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
A.L., a minor prisoner, by next friend )
Annette Lundeby, )
)
Petitioner )
)
v. ) Cause No. 3:09-CV-234 RM
)
BILL BRUINSMA, )
)
Respondent )
ORDER
On May 22, 2009, Annette Lundeby filed a document with the court
captioned as a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2242. Ms.
Lundeby filed the petition on behalf of her minor son, A.L., who awaits decision
on the government's motion in this court to transfer him to adult jurisdiction. Mrs.
Lundeby asserts various objections to the ongoing proceedings, including due
process and subject matter jurisdiction challenges. Mrs. Lundeby asks that the
court issue a writ of habeas corpus releasing A.L. from pretrial detention and
placing him on supervised release pending final resolution of his case. On May 26,
Mrs. Lundeby filed an amended petition, substantially identical in substance to
the first filed petition. For the following reasons, the court denies Mrs. Lundeby's
motions for habeas corpus.
Section 2241 provides district courts with the power to grant applications
for writs of habeas corpus made by prisoners, including those "in custody under
or by color of the authority of the United States . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To be
eligible for habeas relief under § 2241, a federal pretrial detainee must first
exhaust other available remedies. Alden v. Kellerman, 224 Fed. Appx. 545, 547
(7th Cir. 2007) (citing Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-392 (1918) ("It is well
settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the
regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be
granted in advance of a trial")); see also Moore v. United States, 875 F. Supp. 620,
624 (D. Neb. 1994) ("[W]here habeas claims raised by a pretrial detainee would be
dispositive of the pending federal criminal charges, principles of federal court
efficiency require that the petitioner exhaust those claims by presenting them at
trial and on direct appeal."). For example, a federal pretrial detainee cannot use
§ 2241 to challenge pretrial detention orders that can be challenged under 18
U.S.C. § 3145, United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1987), or to
challenge the sufficiency of an indictment where the defendant can still pursue
the challenge during his criminal appeal. See Allen v. Kellerman, 224 Fed. Appx.
at 547; see also In re Williams, 306 Fed. Appx. 818, 819 (4th Cir. 2009)
(dismissing federal pretrial detainee's petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to § 2241 where the defendant could assert his claims in his pending
criminal case).
Assuming Mrs. Lundeby stands in her son's shoes for habeas purposes —
a dubious assumption — she hasn't exhausted the available remedies or shown
that exceptional circumstances justify the relief requested. A.L. may raise
challenges to his pretrial confinement and the sufficiency of the indictment as well
2
as jurisdictional and due process concerns in the pending pretrial proceedings
and, if desired, on appeal. A.L. already has challenged his pretrial detention
unsuccessfully and may take an interlocutory appeal of his pretrial detention. Fed.
R. App. P. 9 provides that a party may obtain review of a district court order
regarding detention of a defendant before judgment of conviction. Mrs. Lundeby
hasn't identified any nonfrivolous basis for pursuing habeas relief in advance of
trial. See Meyers v. Mukasey, 2009 WL 210715 at *1 (E.D. Va. Jan. 28, 2009)
(denying federal pretrial detainee’s § 2241 petition where the defendant failed to
show cause why his allegations regarding a conspiracy between the prosecutor,
his defense counsel, and the court couldn't be fairly raised at trial).
Accordingly, the court DENIES A.L.'s first pretrial application for writ of
habeas corpus [Doc. No. 1] and A.L.'s first amended pretrial application for writ
of habeas corpus [Doc. No. 3] and DISMISSES the action without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
ENTERED: June 3, 2009
/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
cc: AL c/o A. Lundeby
J. Masters
3