Abdulkarim v. Clark County Detention Center

[5] 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * 9 HABIB ABDULKARIM, Case No. 2:22-cv-01241-ART-NJK 10 Petitioner, Order Dismissing Petition v. [11] CLARK COUNTY DETENTION 12 CENTER, et al., 13 Respondents. [14] In his original pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas [15] corpus Habib Abdulkarim raised a claim of excessive bail. (ECF No. 4.) Because [16] the claim appeared unexhausted, the court directed Abdulkarim to show cause [17] and file such proof as he may have to demonstrate that he exhausted his claim. [18] (ECF No. 3.) Instead, Abdulkarim filed an amended petition. (ECF No. 9.) The [19] amended petition asserts that the state district court is violating his Sixth [20] Amendment right to a speedy trial. He indicates on the face of the petition that [21] he has not raised this claim in state court. Thus, he has not exhausted [22] available state court remedies. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of [23] Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-92 (1973) (holding that pretrial detainee in state [24] custody must exhaust available state court remedies before seeking federal [25] habeas review of the detainee’s constitutional claim); Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 26 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2018)(observing that pretrial detainee had properly [27] ' exhausted his state court remedies before filing federal petition for a writ of 2 habeas corpus). Here it appears that from Abdulkarim’s amended petition that he and his ‘ counsel disagree about whether to pursue pretrial habeas relief in state court. (See ECF No. at 2-3.) The court is not inclined to consider Abdulkarim’s habeas 6 claim prior to giving the Nevada courts an opportunity to redress any violation of Abdulkarim’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 8 491 (observing that pretrial detainee seeking to enforce right to speedy trial had 9 exhausted state court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief). "0 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is DISMISSED without " prejudice. "2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of reason would not find the court’s dismissal of this action for failure to " state a cognizable claim to be debatable or incorrect. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court enter judgment accordingly and close this case. [17] 18 DATED: 21 October 2022. jlosed den rf Mase ANNE R. TRAUM 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE