United States District Court, D. Idaho
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER
Honorable Candy W. Dale United States Magistrate Judge.
Michael Patrick Sather is a Nebraska prisoner presently
detained in the Diagnostic and Evaluation Center in Lincoln,
Nebraska. Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus seeking an order instructing an Idaho state court to
dismiss pending criminal charges. (Dkt. 1.) Because
Petitioner is challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings,
the Court construes the Petition as filed under 28 U.S.C.
discretion, the Court may apply the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”) to habeas petitions
filed pursuant to § 2241. See Habeas Rule 1(b).
Therefore, the Court now reviews the Petition to determine
whether it appears to be subject to summary dismissal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243 and Habeas Rule 4.
September 2015, in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Twin
Falls County, Idaho, Petitioner was charged with burglary and
theft by deception. See State v. Sather, Twin Falls
Cnty. No. CR42-15-11600, docket accessible at
https://icourt.idaho.gov/. At that time, Petitioner
was incarcerated in Iowa. (Pet., Dkt. 1, at 1-2.)
October 2016, the Twin Falls County prosecutor lodged a
detainer against Petitioner, in Iowa, pursuant to the
Interstate Agreement on Detainers (“IAD”), 18
U.S.C. § 2. The IAD is an interstate compact that
“creates uniform procedures for lodging and executing a
detainer by one State against a prisoner held in
another.” United States v. Lualemaga, 280 F.3d
1260, 1263 (9th Cir. 2002). According to Petitioner, he was
not transported to Idaho to face the pending criminal charges
within the 180-day period set forth in the IAD. (Dkt. 1 at
Iowa state sentence expired in May 2018. (Id. at 3.)
At some point between May 2018 and the present, Petitioner
became a Missouri state prisoner and then a Nebraska state
prisoner. (See Id. at 9; Dkt 11.) It is unclear
whether Petitioner was transferred between prisons, or
whether he was released in one state and later
re-incarcerated in another.
states that a second Idaho detainer was lodged against him in
July 2018, which he refused to sign, “knowing that the
original (IAD) was violated.” (Id.) Petitioner
filed a motion to dismiss in his Twin Falls County criminal
case, and a hearing was held on that motion in October 2018.
See Twin Falls County iCourt Database, No.
CR42-15-11600, https://icourt.idaho.gov/, (accessed
Sept. 10, 2019).
to the iCourt Database, it appears that Petitioner's
motions to dismiss remain pending in the Twin Falls County
criminal case. See Id. (showing additional motions
to dismiss filed on April 17 and 18, 2019.) A status
conference in that case is scheduled for December 27, 2019.
asks that this Court order the Twin Falls County Court to
dismiss the pending criminal charges against Petitioner based
on alleged violations of the IAD and of his constitutional
right to a speedy trial. (Dkt. 1 at 6-7; Dkt 2.)
28 U.S.C. § 2241 gives federal courts jurisdiction to
issue pretrial writs of habeas corpus to state criminal
defendants in appropriate cases. Braden v.
30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410
U.S. 484, 489-93 (1973). A pre-requisite to bringing a
federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is
exhausting one's federal claims in state court.
all federal habeas corpus petitions, § 2241 claims that
challenge detainers under the IAD must first be exhausted in
state courts. Id.; Carden v. Montana, 626
F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980); Cain v. Petrovsley, 798
F.2d 1194, 1195 (8th Cir. 1986). The exhaustion doctrine
requires that a petitioner give the state courts, through the
designated appellate process, “a full and fair
opportunity to resolve federal constitutional claims”
before bringing those claims to federal court. See
O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)
(explaining exhaustion in the context of habeas petitions
brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254). To do so, the
petitioner must invoke one complete round of the state's
established appellate review process, fairly presenting all
constitutional claims to the state courts so that they have a
full and fair opportunity to correct alleged ...