United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Brisbois United States Magistrate Judge.
matter comes before the undersigned United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to a general referral in accordance with the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Local Rule 72.1, as
well as, upon Petitioner Juanel Anthony Mikulak's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254, [Docket No. 1], as well as, Petitioner's
Application to Proceed in forma pauperis. [Docket No. 2].
Juanel Anthony Mikulak is currently detained at the Dakota
County Jail awaiting trial on domestic-assault charges.
(See, Petition, [Docket No. 1], at 1). Mikulak now
presents this Court with a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging the legality of that prosecution, alleging
that the ongoing criminal process violates “The Peace
and Friendship Treaty of 1787 and 1836, ” the
“Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ” and the
“Rights of Indigenous People.” (See,
Petition, [Docket No. 1], at 5, 7). Mikulak also asserts that
he is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
The habeas petition is now before the Court on review
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
in the United States District Courts. Based on that review, this
Court recommends dismissal of the Petition without prejudice
for failure to exhaust available state remedies.
general federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
does not include an express exhaustion requirement. In the
interests of comity, though, federal courts have long
required state detainees proceeding under § 2241 to
exhaust available state-court remedies before seeking habeas
corpus relief. See, e.g., Sacco v. Falke,
649 F.2d 634, 636-37 (8th Cir. 1981). “Ordinarily, a
state detainee must await the entry of a final state court
judgment in order to satisfy the exhaustion of state remedies
requirement and qualify for federal habeas corpus
review.” Politano v. Miller, No. 08-cv-0238
(PJS/FLN), 2008 WL 906300, at *3 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2008)
(collecting cases). “Absent extraordinary
circumstances, federal courts should not interfere with the
states' pending judicial processes prior to trial and
conviction . . . .” Sacco, 649 F.2d at 636
(citing Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354 (8th Cir.
already mentioned, Mikulak's criminal prosecution remains
ongoing in state court. Not unless the claims raised in
Mikulak's petition demonstrate “extraordinary
circumstances” should those claims be considered by the
Court at this time. Id. Such “extraordinary
circumstances” have chiefly been limited to
double-jeopardy claims, see, Satter v.
Leapley, 977 F.2d 1259, 1261 (8th Cir. 1992), and
speedy-trial violations, see, Fuller v.
Minnesota, No. 17-cv-0898 (PJS/TNL), 2017 WL 5198156, at
*3-4 (D. Minn. Sept. 29, 2017) (collecting cases), though
plausible allegations of bad-faith prosecution may also
suffice. See, Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S.
82, 85 (1971). None of these claims-and indeed, no other such
extraordinary circumstance-can plausibly be inferred from
Mikulak's petition. If Mikulak is correct that treaty
obligations or other sources of international law cause his
prosecution for domestic assault to be unlawful, nothing
prevents him from raising those claims in the state courts.
If those arguments are rejected by the state courts (at each
level of review), then Mikulak may return to federal court
and seek habeas corpus relief. In the meantime, however,
comity requires noninterference with the ongoing prosecution.
See, e.g., Sacco v. Falke, 649 F.2d 634,
636-37 (8th Cir. 1981).
it is recommended that Mikulak's petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, [Docket No. 1], be dismissed without
prejudice. Accordingly, it is also recommended that
Mikulak's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis be
denied as moot.
Court notes that one additional matter merit further comment.
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of
appeals from . . . the final order in a habeas corpus
proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1)(A); accord Evans v. Circuit Ct. of Cook
County, Illinois, 569 F.3d 665, 666 (7th Cir. 2009)
(concluding that “a state prisoner being held after an
indictment or preliminary hearing, who seeks pretrial
release, needs a certificate of appealability in order to
appeal from a district court's decision denying a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.”). A certificate
of appealability (“COA”) cannot be granted unless
the petitioner “has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(2). This Court finds that Mikulak has not made the
necessary showing, and it is doubtful that any other court,
including the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, would resolve
Mikulak's petition differently than is being recommended
here. It is therefore recommended that Mikulak not be granted
based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
Petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Juanel
Anthony Mikulak, [Docket No. 1], be DISMISSED WITHOUT
Mikulak's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis,
[Docket No. 2], be DENIED.
certificate of appealability be issued.