Enwonwu v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Superior Court

BRIAN ENWONWU, Petitioner,

v.COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUPERIOR COURT, FALL RIVER, Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-10703-DJC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

May 16, 2012

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CASPER, D. J.

I. Introduction

On April 16, 2012, petitioner Brian Enwonwu ("Enwonwu"), a pretrial detainee in custody at the Bristol County House of Correction in North Dartmouth, Massachusetts, filed a self-prepared petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.¹ Enwonwu has been criminally charged with home invasion and the state court judge set his bail at $25,000.00. Enwonwu alleges that his bail is excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment. He claims that "all the other four characters are only on bail $1000-$5000." Pet. at 2 ¶ 2. Further, Enwonwu alleges that he is detained in jail even though he is only seventeen years old and already committed to the care of the Massachusetts Department of Youth Services ("DYS") in Taunton until April 2012. In addition to these arguments, Enwonwu alleges that, at age 16, he was sexually abused. He contends that his father filed a police report seeking to have an investigation made into this matter. He further contends that the Taunton Police Department has conspired with his alleged sexual abusers to obstruct justice by failing to investigate his sexual abuse claims and by submitting false evidencein connection with his criminal case.² He maintains that he is innocent of the crime charged and was framed in order for his abusers to build a defense in his sexual abuse case. Additionally, Enwonwu alleges that the police reports, grand jury proceedings, and exhibits show the motivation of the prosecutor and demonstrate that he cannot get a fair trial under these circumstances.

As a further ground for relief, Enwonwu claims that he is disabled, suffers from medical and mental health problems, and is being "tortured" every day. He recounts that he was abused at home, was under the Department of Social Services care, and has been hospitalized for mental health issues all of his life. He seeks immediate release from detention so that he may go back to school. He also seeks to have his bail lowered and to have his state criminal case dismissed for violation of his civil rights.

Attached to the petition was a letter from Enwonwu's father, Frank Enwonwu ("Frank"), in support of his son. Frank pleads for mercy, setting forth Enwonwu's troubled childhood, including, inter alia, Enwonwu's deportation to Nigeria (because of Frank's immigration status), his return to the United States six years later, his periods of homelessness, his medical and mental health problems resulting in institutionalizations, his absences from school, and his alleged sexual abuse.³ He claims that his son was taken advantage of by several friends, and that these individuals (i.e., Mickey, Jillian Munroe and her mother, Rhonda Anderson) were a bad influence on him. He also claims that he was unaware of his son's whereabout for months and then later discovered that his son was in the "illegal custody of Rhonda Anderson." Letter (Docket No. 1-1 at 2). Finally, theletter concludes by asserting that the Taunton Police Department conspired with Rhonda Anderson and Jillian Munroe to frame his son.

II. Discussion

A. The Filing Fee

As an initial matter, Enwonwu has not paid the $5.00 filing fee for this petition nor sought a waiver thereof. His failure to do so is grounds for dismissal since a party filing a habeas action in this Court must either (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee for habeas corpus actions; or (2) seek leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (fees); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). The motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee must be accompanied by "a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in any account in the institution." Rule 3(a)(2) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases.⁴

Although a petitioner who has not paid the filing fee or submitted an application for waiver of the filing fee may be granted additional time to do so, because this action is dismissed sua sponte for the reasons stated below, this Court need not grant Enwonwu additional time to comply with the filing fee requirements noted above.

B. Review of the Habeas Petition

Although this petition was brought pursuant to Section 2241 and not Section 2254, the rules governing Section 2254 cases may be applied at the discretion of the district court to other habeaspetitions.⁵ See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 proceedings; Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203, 1211 n.2 (10th Cir. 2005) (district court acted within its discretion by applying Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 to § 2241 petition); Perez v. Hemingway, 157 F. Supp. 2d 790, 795 (E.D. Mich. 2001).

Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 proceedings, the Court is required to examine a petition, and if it "plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court," the Court "must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner." Rule 4; McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (habeas petition may be dismissed if it appears to be legally insufficient on its face); Mahoney v. Vondergritt, 938 F.2d 1490, 1494 (1st Cir. 1991) (upholding Rule 4 summary dismissal of § 2254 petition). 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. Marmol v. Dubois, 855 F. Supp. 444, 446 (D. Mass. 1994); see Eady v. Director, Charleston County Detention Center, 2011 WL 3704225, *3 (D.S.C. 2011) citing Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970) (noting that federal district courts have a duty to screen habeas petitions and eliminate burden on respondents caused by ordering an unnecessary answer or return), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 906 (1970).

Here, Enwonwu's habeas petition must be dismissed sua sponte for the reasons set forthbelow.

C. Failure to Name the Proper Respondent

A pretrial detainee contesting the legality of his detention normally must name his immediate custodian, "the individual having day to day control over the facility in which he is being detained" as the respondent to the petition. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004); Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 694 (1st Cir. 2000) (a petitioner's legal custodian is the individual having day-to-day control over the facility in which petitioner is being detained), cert. denied, sub nom. Vasquez v. Ashcroft, 122 S. Ct. 43 (2001).

Here Enwonwu has, erroneously, named the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Fall River Superior Court as the respondent. Thus, the petition may be dismissed on this ground.⁶

D. Abstention Bars Review of State Bail Decisions

Moreover, under the doctrine of abstention, this Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction to intervene in pending state criminal proceedings. See In re Justices of Superior Court Dept. of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2000) (noting that "[t]he federal courts have long recognized the 'fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminalproceedings.'" (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971))).

Under Younger, abstention is required when: (1) a state proceeding is pending; (2) the state proceeding involves important state interests; (3) the state proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal constitutional issue(s); and (4) the plaintiff in the federal case has not demonstrated bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief. S. Boston Allied War Veterans' Council v. Zobel, 830 F. Supp. 643, 649 (D. Mass. 1993).

In this case, there is an ongoing state criminal case and that ongoing state case implicates a significant state interest. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45 (state court criminal matters are of paramount state interest).⁷ Further, states have an important interest in protecting the authority of the state judicial system, so that its orders and judgments are not rendered nugatory. S. Boston Allied War Veterans' Council, 830 F. Supp. at 649 (quotations and citations omitted).

Next, Enwonwu has not set forth any facts whatsoever to support a claim that the state proceeding does not afford him an adequate opportunity to raise his federal constitutional issues based on the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Indeed, this Court cannot reasonably infer fromhis bald allegations of conspiracy and obstruction of justice that state remedies are inadequate. There simply is no reason to believe that these defenses cannot be raised before the trial judge in the course of the state proceedings.⁸

Finally, Enwonwu has not demonstrated bad faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstances that would call for equitable relief. Unsupported allegations of bad faith, harassment, or extraordinary circumstances are not sufficient to overcome the presumption of abstention. Brown, 2011 WL 5865064 at *1. Further, extraordinary circumstances are not present where appropriate relief is available in state courts. Haskins, 2011 WL 662653 at *2 citing Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, Delaware County, PA, 959 F2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992) and Moore v. De Young, 515 F.2d 437, 441 (3d Cir. 1975) (there are no extraordinary circumstances presented where the applicant will have an opportunity to raise this claim in state trial court and appellate proceedings). Similarly the allegation that Enwonwu is a minor being tried and held as an adult while he is in DYS custody is insufficient. Absent a showing that he has attempted to raise this issue in state court but has been denied a fair opportunity to do so, this Court cannot find that...