Smith v. Gordon

Background

Ricardio Dale Smith faced trial in two Minnesota state-court criminal actions. One involved alleged failure to meet predatory-offender registration requirements, and the other involved a charge of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Both trials were scheduled for October 30, 2024.

Smith’s action began as a filing received by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. That court treated the filing as a civil complaint against Minnesota state-court Judge Andrew Gordon and transferred the action to the District of Minnesota. Smith’s filings challenged constitutional problems in his criminal proceedings and asked a federal court to intervene.

Smith later filed a document titled “Writ of Prohibition/Writ of Certiorari to Dismiss Complaint,” which focused largely on alleged speedy-trial violations and sought intervention in the state proceedings. The court treated that filing as a proposed amended pleading and, under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, allowed it to replace the initial filing as the operative pleading.

How the court characterized the case

The court concluded that the action was properly treated as a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging certain forms of custody. It rejected treatment under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because Smith was a state pretrial detainee awaiting trial, not someone held under a state-court judgment.

The court also explained that a writ of mandamus could not be used to tell a state court how to perform its judicial duties, and that this federal court lacked appellate jurisdiction over Ramsey County trial courts for purposes of certiorari review. If the matter had instead remained an ordinary civil action, the court stated that abstention based on the pending state criminal proceedings would have supported dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. That alternative characterization did not change the recommended outcome.

Exhaustion and speedy-trial claim

The court stated that state pretrial detainees generally must exhaust state-court remedies before seeking federal relief under § 2241. It found that Smith had not exhausted state remedies for most of his arguments.

The court separately considered Smith’s speedy-trial claim. It explained that a state pretrial detainee may sometimes bring such a claim under § 2241 without first exhausting state remedies, but only when seeking to go to trial rather than dismissal of the charges. Because Smith sought dismissal of his state cases “forthwith,” rather than a prompt trial, the court concluded that the usual exhaustion requirement applied. The record did not show that Smith had exhausted his state remedies on that issue.

Disposition

The court ordered that Smith’s petition be treated as the action’s operative pleading. In the recommendation portion, Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended that the petition be denied and that the action be dismissed. The judge also recommended denying as moot Smith’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs, his “Affidavit/Motion,” and his letter. The recommendation stated that the ordinary filing-fee provisions did not apply because the action was no longer being treated as a standard non-habeas civil case.

The opinion is an order and report and recommendation. The notice stated that the recommendation was not yet a district-court order or judgment and was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. It allowed specific written objections within the time stated in the notice.