Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daker v. Sapp

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Statesboro Division

August 6, 2019

WASEEM DAKER, Petitioner,
v.
SHERIFF KYLE SAPP, Respondent.

          ORDER

          J. RANDAL HALL CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This 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.

         BACKGROUND

         Daker 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.

         The 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 turn.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Daker's Motion to Amend/Supplement, doc. 12

         Daker 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.

         Federal 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 that:

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 is earlier.

         As the 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).

         II. Daker's Objections to the Report and Recommendation, doc. II, [1] and Claims Raised in his Amended Petition

         Daker 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.

         A. Whether Daker Meets the "in Custody" Requirement

         A 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, 238(1968)).

         Here, 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.

         B. Whether Daker's Cobb County Conviction ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.