Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
2-21-2008
Johnson v. USA
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-4706
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"Johnson v. USA" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 1547.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/1547
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
ALD-128 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4706
___________
HAKIEM JOHNSON,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-03672)
District Judge: Honorable R. Barclay Surrick
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
February 14, 2008
Before: SLOVITER, FISHER and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: February 21, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Hakiem Johnson appeals, pro se, from the District Court’s denial of his habeas
corpus petition. We will summarily affirm. See LAR 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6.
I.
Johnson is a defendant in a complex criminal case currently pending before the
District Court. (See United States v. Coles, et al., E.D. Pa. Crim. No. 04-cr-00440.) He is
represented by court-appointed counsel. It appears that the indictments charged Johnson
and twenty-one co-defendants with numerous offenses related to an alleged drug
conspiracy. The District Court has conducted suppression hearings in the criminal case,
and Johnson’s jury trial is currently scheduled to begin in April 2008.
On August 31, 2007, Johnson filed a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
He requested the dismissal of the indictment against him and his release from pre-trial
custody on such grounds as prosecutorial misconduct and perjury by police officers and
federal agents with respect to a search warrant’s affidavit of probable cause. Johnson
also filed a motion to amend his habeas petition, in which he reiterated his allegations
regarding the affidavit and also referred to alleged violations of his rights under the
Speedy Trial Act and the Double Jeopardy Clause. On November 8, 2007, the District
Court denied Johnson’s petition as frivolous.
II.
The District Court committed no error in denying Johnson’s pre-trial habeas
petition.1 We find that Johnson’s claims of misconduct and perjury failed to implicate the
legality of his pre-trial custody for purposes of § 2241. As opposed to challenging the
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
2
validity of the detention order authorizing his incarceration pending the outcome of his
criminal trial, Johnson in essence raised Fourth Amendment issues, which are generally
addressed in the context of motions to suppress. Johnson apparently attempted to
construct the following chain connecting the Fourth Amendment issues with his current
custody: (1) the affidavit of probable cause contained lies and misrepresentations (which
have been reiterated during the course of the criminal case); (2) the search warrant was
issued based on the affidavit; (3) the search resulted in his arrest; and (4) his arrest led to
his current incarceration and prosecution. Similarly, he argued that “he is not in custody
pursuant to an act of congress [but pursuant] to an act of perjury committed by the
[Assistant United States Attorney] and [law enforcement personnel].” (Mem. of Law at
2.) Nevertheless, his conclusory assertions are insufficient to establish the necessary
nexus between the alleged misconduct and the legality of his current custody. See Brown
v. Lundgren, 528 F.2d 1050, 1054 (5th Cir. 1976) (“There must be a sufficient nexus
between the allegedly [illegal] action and the legality of his custody for habeas corpus to
lie.”).
Furthermore, Johnson is a represented defendant in a current criminal case. A
criminal defendant would generally be expected to raise Fourth Amendment, speedy trial,
and double jeopardy claims in a counseled motion in the criminal case itself. As the
District Court noted, suppression hearings have been held in Johnson’s criminal case.
Furthermore, Johnson himself is represented by counsel. Cf. United States v. Essig, 10
3
F.3d 968, 973 (3d Cir. 1993) (stating that district court has no obligation to act on pro se
filings by party represented by counsel). Johnson’s case is scheduled to be heard by a
jury, which will render a decision as to whether he is guilty or not guilty of the charges
against him. If found guilty, Johnson will then have an opportunity to file a direct appeal
to this Court from his conviction and sentence. He then may file a post-conviction
motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 if his direct appeal is unsuccessful.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, Johnson’s appeal fails to present a substantial question
on appeal, and we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See LAR 27.4;
I.O.P. 10.6.
4