United States District Court, D. Minnesota
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on Petitioner Eric Bakke's
Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus (ECF No. 1) and the supporting memorandum (ECF No. 2).
This matter, which is before the Court pursuant to Rule 4 of
the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts,  has been referred to the undersigned for a
Report and Recommendation to the Honorable John R. Tunheim,
Chief District Judge for the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
and D. Minn. LR 72.1. For the reasons that follow, the Court
recommends that the Petition be denied without prejudice.
Eric Bakke is a defendant in a criminal case pending in this
district. See United States v. Siwek, et al., No.
19-cr-188-2 (NEB/KMM). He has been charged with multiple
drug-related offenses. Id. (ECF No. 29). Petitioner
was arraigned on August 19, 2019 and ordered detained the
next day. Id. (ECF Nos. 56 & 57). Petitioner did
not seek reconsideration of his detention order. He also did
not file an interlocutory appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court
one month later, Petitioner filed this Petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. He argues the District Court in his criminal
case does not have jurisdiction over him because the
indictment fails to allege an offense “against the laws
of the United States.” (ECF No. 2, p. 4). He instead
contends that his prosecution should be conducted by the
State of Minnesota. (Id., p. 8). He seeks his
immediate release. (ECF No. 1).
weeks after filing the Petition, Petitioner informed the
Magistrate Judge in his criminal case that he had reached a
plea agreement to resolve his criminal charges. Siwek, et
al., No. 19-cr-188-2 (NEB/KMM) (ECF No. 104). A change
of plea hearing is now set for October 10, 2019.
pre-trial detainees can obtain habeas review of pre-trial
decisions only if they exhaust all other remedies.
Kisling v. Anderson, No. 03-cv-2208, 2003 WL
21639148, at *1 (D. Minn. 2003) (citing Moore v. United
States, 875 F.Supp. 620, 622-23 (D. Neb. 1994)). A
federal pre-trial detainee may not seek Section 2241 relief
if he or she has not sought direct review of his or her
detention, or if the detainee still has the opportunity to
raise those issues in the criminal proceedings. Id.;
see also United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006,
1009 (7th Cir. 1987) (affirming denial of a Section 2241
petition because petitioner could have sought direct review
of his confinement during his trial). The reasons for this
are simple: allowing courts to entertain habeas petitions
from pre-trial detainees would be both inefficient and raise
the risk of “nearly simultaneous and potentially
conflicting decisions[.]” Kisling, 2003 WL
21639148, at *1-*2.
is currently a federal pretrial detainee. He has not asked
for reconsideration of his current detention order. Nor has
he sought interlocutory appeal from the Eighth Circuit.
Because his criminal case is still on-going, it might be
possible for him to raise the issues he identifies in his
Petition in the criminal matter, where he has the benefit of
counsel. To review Bakke's habeas claims at this time
would frustrate judicial efficiency and risk the possibility
of conflicting decisions.
based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED
that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, (ECF No. 1), be DISMISSED WITHOUT
Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an
order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not
appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve
specific written objections to a magistrate judge's
proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after
being served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation.
A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after
being served a copy of the objections. See Local