United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division
RANDAL HALL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Waseem Daker's
("Daker") Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation. Doc. 11. The Magistrate Judge
recommended the Court dismiss Daker's 28 U.S.C. §
2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because Daker was not
"in custody" at the time he filed his Petition,
Daker's Petition was moot, and Daker could not bring
non-habeas claims in his Petition. Doc. 6. Daker has also
filed: (1) Motion to Stay Time to Object, doc. 7; (2) Motion
for Access to Case Authorities, doc. 8; (3) Motion for Law
Library Access, doc. 9; and (4) Motion to Amend and
Supplement Petition, doc. 12. As Daker has filed his
Objections, the Court DENIES as moot his
Motion to Stay, doc. 7. For the reasons set forth herein, the
Court GRANTS Daker's Motion to Amend and
Supplement Petition and DENIES his Motions
for Access to Case Authorities and for Law Library Access.
For these same reasons, the Court also SUSTAINS in
part and OVERRULES in part
Daker's Objections but CONCURS with the
Magistrate Judge's recommended disposition of Daker's
Petition, as amended. Thus, the Court DISMISSES in
part and DENIES as moot in part
Daker's Petition, DIRECTS the Clerk of
Court to CLOSE this case and enter the
appropriate judgment of dismissal, and
DENIES Daker in forma pauperis
status on appeal.
filed this § 2241 Petition and a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Docs. 1, 2. In his
Petition, Daker asserts he is challenging a detainer the
Tattnall County Sheriff lodged against him based on pending
criminal charges of obstruction of an officer. Doc. 1 at 1.
Daker contends his due process rights have been violated
during the Tattnall County criminal proceedings based on lack
of probable cause, the denial of a probable cause hearing,
arid the denial of a bond hearing entirely without
explanation or within 10 days of his requests for a bond
hearing. Id. at 2, 5-6. Daker maintains the
officers' actions during the events giving rise to his
criminal prosecution violated his First and Eighth Amendment
rights and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act ("RLUIPA"). Id. at 7-8. Daker
alleges he filed a state habeas corpus petition, but the
state court dismissed his petition as prematurely filed since
he was not challenging a final conviction. Id. at 6.
Daker originally did not provide the Court with his requested
relief based on the violations alleged, doc. 1, but requests
in his Amended Petition that all charges and the detainer
therefor in the Tattnall County Superior Court be dismissed.
Doc. 12-1 at 12.
Magistrate Judge denied Daker's motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 5. The Magistrate
Judge also recommended the Court dismiss Daker's Petition
because Daker has not met the "in custody"
requirement for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
Daker's Petition is moot, and he cannot bring claims
against Officers Hutcheson and Shumake in this Petition. Doc.
6 at 3-8. In response, Daker filed his Objections, as well as
several other Motions. The Court addresses these filings in
Daker's Motion to Amend/Supplement, doc. 12
moves to amend his Petition under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 15(a) and (d) as a matter of course. Doc. 12 at 1.
He asserts he sets forth additional facts to support the
substantive defenses to the charged offenses and seeks to add
another claim regarding his right to a speedy trial.
Id. at 3.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which governs amendment of
pleadings, applies to § 2241 petitions. Mayle v.
Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 655 (2005). Rule 15(a)(1) provides
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course
within: (A) 21 days after serving it, or (B) if the pleading
is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days
after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after
service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever
Court has not directed service of Daker's Petition and
Respondent has not yet answered, Daker can properly amend his
petition under Rule 15 without leave of the Court. The Court,
nevertheless, GRANTS Daker's Motion to Amend. Because
Petitioner could properly amend, the Court must address
Daker's amended claims. Henderson v. Rountree,
CV 117-177, 2018 WL 1157555, at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2018).
Daker's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, doc.
II,  and Claims Raised in his Amended
contends Respondent lodged a detainer against him with
Department of Corrections' officials under the Tattnall
County indictment. Thus, Daker asserts he meets the "in
custody" requirement for purposes of his Petition. Doc.
11 at 9. Daker states it is irrelevant that he is in custody
on a conviction and sentence in another case, as he can
challenge his pretrial custody on a pending detainer.
Id. at 10. Additionally, Daker asserts his
conviction and sentence arising from Cobb County did not moot
his claims regarding the Tattnall County proceedings.
Id. at 12. Daker asserts he has not been convicted
under the Tattnall County indictment, and his conviction in
Cobb County does not change the fact that he is also in
pretrial custody on the pending indictment and detainer in
Tattnall County. Id. at 13. Even if he were
convicted in Tattnall County, Daker asserts only his denial
of bail claims would be moot, not his challenges to the
prosecution itself. Id. at 14.
Whether Daker Meets the "in Custody"
prisoner may bring an action for writ of habeas corpus if the
prisoner is "in custody" in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The United States Supreme Court has
interpreted § 2241 as requiring a habeas petitioner to
be "in custody" under the conviction or sentence he
seeks to attack at the time his petition is filed. Ray v.
Campbell, 284 Fed.Appx. 773, 774 (11th Cir. 2008)
(citing Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234,
Daker contends he is under indictment in Tattnall County and
the Sheriff placed a detainer against him based on the
charges for which he was indicted. Accordingly, it appears
Daker meets the "in custody" requirement for habeas
corpus purposes. See Stacy v. Warden, Analachee Corr.
Inst., 854 F.2d 401, 403 (11th Cir. 1988) (citing
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484,
489 (1973), for the proposition that a petitioner is in
custody under § 2241(c) when he is being held in one
state and is in custody in another state when the second
state had an indictment and detainer against the
petitioner)). Consequently, the Court SUSTAINS this portion
of Daker's Objections.
Whether Daker's Cobb County Conviction ...