United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
TAVARRES J. HENDERSON, Petitioner,
RICHARD ROUNDTREE, Sheriff, Respondent.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
K. EPPS MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
a pre-trial detainee at the Charles B. Webster Detention
Center in Augusta, Georgia, has filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Upon
review of the petition, the Court REPORTS
and RECOMMENDS this case be
DISMISSED without prejudice and
filed the petition on January 10, 2018, alleging four defects
in the prosecution of his felony case in the Superior Court
of Richmond County as follows:
1) The Clerk of Court did not enter any minutes for the grand
jury proceeding that produced his indictment, rendering the
2) Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by refusing to
communicate with him and failing to investigate his claims
regarding the defective indictment.
3) The district attorney and defense counsel violated Due
Process by not ensuring a written record of the grand jury
proceedings was produced.
4) The district attorney engaged in vindictive prosecution
and prosecutorial misconduct and the judge is unfairly
(Doc. no. 4.)
alleges an indictment date of June 15, 2016. (Id. at
2.) Publicly available records confirm Petitioner currently
has a pending felony case against him in the Superior Court
of Richmond County with the same indictment date charging him
with armed robbery, hijacking a motor vehicle, possession of
a firearm during the commission of a crime, and possession of
a firearm by a convicted felon. State v. Henderson,
Case No. 2016RCCR00856 (Richmond County Superior Court June
15, 2016), available at http://coc.augustaga.gov
(follow “Criminal Search” hyperlink; then search
for Case No. 2016RCCR00856, last visited Jan. 24, 2018);
see also United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553
(11th Cir. 1994) (noting a court may take judicial notice of
another court's records to establish existence of ongoing
litigation and related filings). Attorney Jason R. Hasty
represents him in his state court proceedings. State v.
Henderson, Case No. 2016RCCR00856. The Court issued an
order for a mental evaluation in that case on November 1,
2016, which is still pending. Id. In addition,
Petitioner filed a pro se motion to quash the
indictment and pro se demand for a pretrial special
demurrer, which the Court denied on January 19, 2018.
petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has not
exhausted state court remedies. Although there is no
exhaustion requirement in the language of 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3), federal courts do not exercise jurisdiction under
§ 2241 if the issues raised might be resolved by trial
on the merits or other available state procedures.
Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 475 (11th
Cir. 2015) (explaining exhaustion requirement in § 2241
case); Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th
Cir. 2004) (same). “The exhaustion doctrine of §
2241(c)(3) was judicially crafted on federalism grounds to
protect the state courts' opportunity to confront and
resolve initially any constitutional issues arising within
their jurisdiction and also to limit federal interference in
the state adjudicatory process.” Turner v.
Morgan, No. 3:12cv188/MCR/CJK, 2012 WL 2003835, at *2
(N.D. Fla. Apr. 25, 2012), adopted by, 2012 WL
2003452 (N.D. Fla. June 4, 2012) (citation omitted). Put
differently, it prevents “pretrial habeas interference
by federal courts in the normal functioning of a state's
criminal processes, absent a petitioner's exhaustion of
his state court remedies.” Id. (citing
Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S.
484, 493 (1973)).
in Petitioner's filings suggests he has been prevented
from asserting his current claims in his state court
proceeding. Indeed, publicly available records show that
Petitioner filed two pro se motions seeking similar
relief from the state court in his pending case. State v.
Henderson, Case No. 2016RCCR00856. Moreover, Petitioner
does not state he has attempted, let alone been denied the
opportunity to pursue, any other relief via collateral
proceedings in the state courts of Georgia. See Hughes v.
Coursey, No. CV 110-077, 2010 WL 3338696, at *2 (S.D.
Ga. July 27, 2010), adopted by, 2010 WL 3338694
(S.D. Ga. Aug. 20, 2010) (“In Georgia, the proper
method for ...