United States District Court, D. Maine
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2254
C. Nivison U.S. Magistrate Judge
action, Petitioner Frank Inman, a pretrial detainee, seeks
relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Petition, ECF
No. 1.) He also filed a motion for bail. (Motion, ECF No. 4.)
Petitioner alleges ineffective assistance; he asserts a claim
regarding the conditions of his bail, including a claim of
excessive bail, established by the state court; and he
alleges a claim regarding the conditions of his confinement.
(Id. at 1-2; Attachments, ECF Nos. 3-1, 4.)
claims appear to be the same claims Petitioner raised
recently in a separate proceeding. (Inman v. Penobscot
County Jail, No. 1:17-cv-00358-GZS, Petition, ECF No. 1;
Recommended Decision, ECF No. 12; Order Affirming, ECF No.
Petitioner filed a notice of appeal in the separate
proceeding. (No. 1:17-cv-00358-GZS, Notice of Appeal, ECF No.
a review of Plaintiff's filings, I recommend the Court
dismiss the petition and deny the motion for bail.
filing of a notice of appeal is an event of jurisdictional
significance - it confers jurisdiction on the court of
appeals and divests the district court of its control over
those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.”
Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S.
56, 58 (1982) (per curiam); United States v.
Distasio, 820 F.2d 20, 23 (1st Cir. 1987). The First
Circuit has noted that “the limited exceptions to the
general rule that an appeal terminates a district court's
jurisdiction all pertain ‘to district court orders that
concern matters unrelated to the “substance of the
decision” being appealed.'” United States
v. George, 841 F.3d 55, 71 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting
United States v. Maldonado-Rios, 790 F.3d 62, 64
(1st Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (quoting 16A Charles A. Wright
et al., Federal Practice and Procedure
§ 3949.1, at 59 (4th ed. 2008))).
separate proceeding, because Petitioner has appealed from the
substance of the decision, this Court lacks jurisdiction over
the claims. Griggs, 459 U.S. at 58; George,
841 F.3d at 71. Petitioner may not relitigate the claims by
initiating another proceeding. See Crosby v. Brook,
353 F. App'x 591, 593 (2d Cir. 2009) (“Petitioner
cannot show that the instant petition is anything more than
an attempt to relitigate issues that have been previously
decided by other courts.”). Here, Petitioner is
attempting through this habeas action to assert the claims he
asserted in Inman v. Penobscot County Jail, No.
1:17-cv-00358-GZS, which matter is currently on appeal.
Dismissal, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, therefore, is appropriate.
extent Petitioner is asking the Court to review the bail
decision in the state court proceedings, Petitioner's
claim fails for the reasons discussed in the separate
proceeding. (Inman, No. 1:17-cv-00358-GZS,
Recommended Decision, ECF No. 12 at 5-6.) See Sprint
Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, ___U.S.___, ___, 134
S.Ct. 584, 591 (2013) (noting that Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), “preclude[s] federal
intrusion into ongoing state criminal prosecutions”).
“The considerations of federal-state comity that
militate against federal court intervention, by way of habeas
corpus, with respect to state court convictions which have
not received final state appellate consideration apply with
equal force in the context of state court bail processes in
pending proceedings . . . .” United States v.
Kehl, 456 F.2d 863, 869 (2d Cir. 1972) (discussing the
requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) that relief not be
granted unless a petitioner has exhausted available state
court remedies). See Davila v. Davis, ___ U.S.
___, 137 S.Ct. 2058, 2064 (2017) (“[A] state prisoner
must exhaust available state remedies before presenting his
claim to a federal habeas court. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The
exhaustion requirement is designed to avoid the
‘unseemly' result of a federal court
‘upset[ting] a state court conviction without'
first according the state courts an ‘opportunity to . .
. correct a constitutional violation.'”) (quoting
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982)).
analysis set forth in the Court's decision in the
separate proceeding is not altered simply because Petitioner
asserts his claim in a section 2254 proceeding, or because
Petitioner contests the factual basis for an alleged bail
revocation. (Petition at 10.) Petitioner alleges no facts
that would support the conclusion that he exhausted all
available state court remedies.
on the foregoing analysis, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases, I recommend the Court dismiss
the petition (ECF No. 1) and deny the motion for bail (ECF
No. 4). I further recommend that the Court deny a certificate
of appealability pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases because there is no substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right within the meaning of 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a
magistrate judge's report or proposed findings or
recommended decisions entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the
district court is sought, together with a supporting
memorandum, within fourteen (14) days of being served with a
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver
of the right to de novo review by the district court
and to appeal ...