As-Sidiq v. Hurlock
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:25-cv-01971
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In As-Sidiq v. Hurlock, Magistrate Judge Elkins recommended denying the pretrial detainee’s custody petition for failure to exhaust state remedies.
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq, who was held as a pretrial detainee while facing a pending Minnesota state criminal case; the recommendation would deny his federal custody petition and dismiss this action.
What happened
In As-Sidiq v. Hurlock, La’Quedrick As-Sidiq asked the federal court for release from custody and dismissal of the state criminal charges against him. He was being held before trial, and his state case was still pending.
As-Sidiq raised claims involving bail conditions, the investigation leading to his arrest, access to a lawyer, and seizures of property. The court concluded that he had not first used all available state-court remedies, including possible state appeals.
Magistrate Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended denying the custody petition, denying As-Sidiq’s application to proceed without paying court fees as moot, and dismissing the action. The recommendation was not yet a final district-court order, and the notice allowed written objections within 14 days.
The detailed version
- As-Sidiq v. Hurlock · No. 0:25-cv-01971
- Shannon G. Elkins
- May 13, 2025
Background
La’Quedrick As-Sidiq filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from custody and dismissal of the state charges against him. Minnesota authorities had charged him in November 2024 with several drug-related offenses. He was being held as a pretrial detainee at the Clay County Correctional Facility, and no trial date had been set. The state court was considering briefing on a motion to dismiss.
Claims
The petition appeared to raise four claims: that his bail conditions were excessive under the Eighth Amendment; that the investigation leading to his arrest violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause; that he did not have a lawyer at a November 2024 hearing, violating the Sixth Amendment; and that unspecified seizures of his property violated the Fifth Amendment.
Exhaustion of State Remedies
The court explained that although people held under a state-court judgment generally use 28 U.S.C. § 2254, § 2241 was the appropriate statute here because no state-court judgment had been entered and As-Sidiq was awaiting trial. Even though § 2241 does not expressly require exhaustion, courts require people in state custody to use available state-court remedies before seeking federal relief. This requirement reflects respect for the state courts’ role and the federal system.
The court concluded that As-Sidiq had not exhausted his available state remedies. His state criminal case remained pending, and the record did not show that he had pursued state-court appeals that could satisfy the exhaustion requirement. The court therefore recommended denying the petition without deciding the merits of his constitutional claims.
Recommended Disposition
Judge Shannon G. Elkins recommended that:
- As-Sidiq’s petition under § 2241 be denied.
- His application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs be denied as moot.
- The action be dismissed.
The document was a Report and Recommendation, not a final district-court order or judgment. It stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served, and that the recommendation was not directly appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.