United States District Court, D. New Jersey
LISA J. FANIEL, Petitioner,
WARDEN MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent.
J. Faniel, Petitioner Pro Se
E. THOMPSON, District Judge
the Court is Petitioner Lisa J. Faniel's petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Docket Entry 1. Based on Petitioner's affidavit of
indigency, the application to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted. For the reasons stated below, the
petition shall be dismissed for failure to exhaust state
is a pre-trial detainee presently confined in Monmouth County
Correctional Institution ("MCCI"), Freehold, New
Jersey. She alleges she has been held at MCCI for at least 90
days without receiving a court date or bail hearing. Petition
¶ 13. She states that she is not a flight risk or danger
to the community, and that she should be released on her own
recognizance pending court dates on the charges of aggravated
assault as her actions were in self-defense. Id.
("I should be considered for an ROR on these alledged
[sic] stated charges of aggravated assault. This was all in
defense of harm being caused to myself.").
indicates she filed bail and speedy trial motions on March 6,
April 4, and April 17, 2017, and that she is "waiting
for a response" from the state courts. Id.
¶ 12. She submitted this petition for mailing on April
STANDARD OF REVIEW
brings this Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as a pro se
litigant. The Court has an obligation to liberally construe
pro se pleadings and to hold them to less stringent standards
than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Erickson
v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Higgs v. Atty.
Gen. of the U.S., 655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011),
as amended (Sept. 19, 2011) (citing Estelle v.
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). A pro se habeas
petition and any supporting submissions must be construed
liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v.
Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v.
Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989);
United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d
Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970).
a federal district court must dismiss a habeas corpus
petition if it appears from the face of the petition that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rule 4 (made applicable through Rule 1(b)); see also
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); Siers
v. Ryan, 773 F.2d 37, 45 (3d Cir. 1985), cert,
denied, 490 U.S. 1025 (1989).
courts have jurisdiction under § 2241 to issue a writ of
habeas corpus before a criminal judgment is entered against
an individual in state court, see Moore v. De Young,
515 F.2d 437, 441-42 (3d Cir. 1975), but "that
jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent
in the ordinary circumstance 'pre-trial habeas
interference by federal courts in the normal functioning of
state criminal processes.'"' Duran v.
Thomas, 393 F.App'x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting
Moore, 515 F.3d at 445-46). "The district court
should exercise its 'pretrial' habeas jurisdiction
only if petitioner makes a special showing of the need for
such adjudication and has exhausted state remedies."
Moore, 515 F.2d at 443.
indicates she has filed several motions in the trial court
regarding her pre-trial release and speedy trial rights and
that she is "awaiting for the review of [her] motions .
. ." Petition ¶ 9(b). It is clear from the face of
the petition that Petitioner has not exhausted her state
court remedies as she indicates the trial court has not ruled
on all of her motions. Moreover, the petition indicates she
has not presented her arguments to the New Jersey Superior
Court Appellate Division and Supreme Court. See id.
¶ 8(b) (indicating no second appeal was filed because
she "didn't think it was necessary since [she]
appeared in pre-trial indictment on 4/3/17 [and she] received
a letter from the law clerk and it will reviewed in 30 days
for determination of motions submitted").
practice of exercising [federal habeas] power before the
question has been raised or determined in the state court is
one which ought not to be encouraged.'"
Moore, 515 F.2d at 442 (quoting Cook v.
Hart,146 U.S. 183, 195 (1892)). The state courts are
equally responsible for "protecting the accused in the
enjoyment of [her] [federal] constitutional rights, "
and "comity demands that the state courts, under whose
process [s]he is held ... should be appealed to in the first
instance." Id. at 442-43 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). As Petitioner's claims have
not been ...