United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NATHANIEL M. GORTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Martin Stephen Gottesfeld, a federal pretrial detainee in
custody at the Plymouth County Correction Facility, filed a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. See Docket No. 1. The $5.00 filing fee
is awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy to intentionally
cause damage to protected computers, in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 371, 1030(a)(5)(A), and 1030(c)(4)(B).
See United States v. Gottesfeld, 16-cr-10305-NMG.
Through the instant habeas action, petitioner seeks to
challenge the authority of his pre-trial detention in
relation to the criminal charges now pending in United
States v. Gottesfeld, 16-cr-10305-NMG. The habeas
petition seeks to have the indictment dismissed with
prejudice or that the detention order be vacated and the
terms of bail set. See Docket No. 1 at 7. Petitioner
alleges that: (1) he was not indicted within 30 days of his
arrest, initial appearance, or detention order; (2) the
magistrate judge who issued the search warrant and detention
order was biased because of her and her husband's
connection to the alleged victims; (3) the government lied on
its applications for the criminal complaint, search warrant,
and surveillance of his phone; (4) the statute under which he
is charged under is
unconstitutionally vague; and (5) the charges against him
attempt to criminalize protected speech. Id. at 6 -
paid the $5.00 filing fee the action was randomly assigned to
the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor IV. See Docket Nos.
2, 4. On March 5, 2018, petitioner filed motions for the
recusal of Judge Saylor and for correction of the electronic
docket.See Docket Nos. 5, 6.
Order of Reassignment dated March 7, 2018, Judge Saylor
transferred the case to the undersigned for all further
proceedings. See Docket No. 7. The Order of
Reassignment states, in part, that the remedies sought by
petitioner are more appropriately sought, if at all, from the
judge handling the criminal case. Id. at p. 3.
review and summary dismissal of the petition is authorized by
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases which
requires the court to review habeas petitions promptly and to
summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears
from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief...." Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see
McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (habeas
petition may be dismissed if it appears to be legally
insufficient on its face). The Rules Governing Section 2254
Cases may be applied at the court's discretion to habeas
petitions, such as the one in this action, brought pursuant
to authority other than 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 1(b)
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. A petition for a
writ of habeas corpus may also be summarily dismissed if it
fails to set forth facts that give rise to a cause of action
under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
challenges the legality of his pretrial detention, seeking
habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It is
well-settled, however, that a federal pretrial detainee
cannot use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the
proceedings in a pending federal criminal case. Falcon v.
U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139 (7th Cir.
1995); Whitmer v. Levi, No. 07-4823, 276 Fed.Appx..
217, 218-19 (3d Cir. 2008) (unpublished opinion); Hall v.
Pratt, No. 03-1387, 97 Fed.Appx.. 246, 247-48 (10th Cir.
2004) (unpublished opinion).
almost one hundred years, courts have consistently held that
a federal criminal defendant who seeks to challenge some
aspect of an ongoing federal criminal prosecution must bring
his claims in the criminal case itself. See Mahonev v.
United States, No. 13-11094-NMG, 2013 WL
3148653, at *2 (D. Mass. 2013)(Gorton, J.)(citations
omitted). "It is well settled that in the absence of
exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular
judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus
should not be granted in advance of a trial." Jones
v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918). As the Court
explained in Whitmer:
"[C]laims relating to pending criminal charges should
have been raised in [the petitioner's] criminal case, not
in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Where a
defendant is awaiting trial, the appropriate vehicle for
violations of his constitutional rights are pretrial motions
or the expedited appeal procedure provided by the Bail Reform
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b), (c), and not a habeas corpus
Whitmer, 276 Fed.Appx. at 219.
habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 cannot be
used to undermine, or interfere with, the proceedings in an
ongoing federal criminal case. See Falcon, 52 F.3d
at 139 ("[i]t seems to us to go far afield to seek
habeas corpus relief which could conceivably interfere with
the trial judge's control of the criminal case pending
before him"); Hall, 97 Fed.Appx. at 247-48
("[a]llowing federal prisoner to bring claims in habeas
proceedings that they have not yet, but still could, bring in