United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division
TIMOTHY B. FREDRICKSON, Petitioner,
DUSTY TERRILL, Sheriff, Respondent.
ORDER AND OPINION
MYERSCOUGH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner Timothy B.
Fredrickson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Fredrickson is currently
in federal pretrial detention at the Mercer County Jail, in
Aledo, Illinois. This matter is now before the Court for
preliminary review of the § 2241 petition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 1(b) and Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States
District Courts. For the reasons set forth below,
Petitioner's § 2241 Petition (Doc. 1) is SUMMARILY
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Court takes judicial notice that Fredrickson has a pending
criminal case in the Central District of Illinois before
Chief Judge Sara Darrow and is charged with sexual
exploitation of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2251(a) and (e). United States v.
Fredrickson, No. 4:17-cr-40032-SLD (C.D. Ill.)
(hereinafter “Crim.”). He is currently in
pretrial detention at the Mercer County Jail, with a trial
date set for July 30, 2019.
initially waived a preliminary hearing and consented to
detention at a hearing on March 9, 2017. See Crim.,
March 9, 2017 Minute Entry. At Fredrickson's request, a
bond hearing was held on December 19, 2017. Chief Judge
Darrow denied bond. Crim., Hearing Transcript, d/e
30 at 5-6. After new counsel was appointed for Fredrickson, a
Motion for Reconsideration of Detention Order was filed on
January 23, 2018. Crim., d/e 29. The court held a
hearing on this motion on February 14, 2018, and Chief Judge
Darrow denied the Motion for Reconsideration. Crim.,
Hearing Transcript., d/e 39 at 44.
9, 2018, Fredrickson filed a pro se notice of appeal of the
detention order. Crim., d/e 44. The Seventh Circuit
dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding that a 14-day time
limit applied and that Fredrickson had filed his appeal over
four months late. Crim., d/e 58.
April 16, 2019, Fredrickson filed this pro se Petition for
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). He
argues that the Seventh Circuit should not have denied his
appeal because there is no time limit to appeal bail, and
that the Seventh Circuit failed to reach the merits on his
claim and instead “sidestepped, ducked, and otherwise
dodged” the issues. Fredrickson argues that he was
prejudiced in both his bail hearings because the pretrial
services report, on which the prosecution and Judge relied,
was incorrect and he was unable to view it. Finally, he
argues that he has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to
counsel because his original counsel allowed his bail hearing
to be delayed and failed to appeal the decision. Fredrickson
requests that this Court release him on bond and require the
Seventh Circuit to enter opinions.
neither of Fredrickson's requests for relief are
available through a petition for habeas corpus. The Seventh
Circuit has held that a federal pre-trial detainee's
request for release can only be considered under the Bail
Reform Act, and not under a § 2241 petition for habeas
relief. United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 1006, 1009
(7th Cir. 1987); see also, Reese v. Warden Philadelphia
FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 245 (3d Cir. 2018) (holding
“federal defendants who seek pretrial release should do
so through the means authorized by the Bail Reform Act, not
through a separate § 2241 action”). This is
because “[f]unneling requests for pretrial relief
through the criminal action encourages an orderly, efficient
resolution of the issues, maintains respect for the appellate
process, and prevents duplication of judicial work and
judge-shopping.” Reese, 904 F.3d at 247;
Falcon v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 52 F.3d 137, 139
(7th Cir. 1995) (“It seems to us to go far afield to
seek habeas corpus relief which could conceivably interfere
with the trial judge's control of the criminal case
pending before him.”). Accordingly, the Court will not
entertain Fredrickson's request for release.
request that this Court order the Seventh Circuit to enter
opinions is also not properly brought through a petition for
habeas corpus. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the
proper action “[i]f the prisoner is seeking what can
fairly be described as a quantum change in the level of
custody.” Graham v. Broglin, 922 F.2d 379, 381
(7th Cir. 1991). Whether the Seventh Circuit issues an
opinion has no bearing on Fredrickson's custody.
Moreover, this Court has no authority to order the Seventh
Circuit to do anything.
Petitioner Timothy B. Fredrickson's Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) ...