O'Neal v. Keenan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
LAFRANCES DUDLEY O’NEAL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0180 (PLF)
)
CLIFFORD KEENAN et al. )
)
Defendants. )
___________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se petitioner LaFrances Dudley O’Neal has filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny her
petition and will dismiss this case.
LaFrances Dudley O’Neal is a defendant in a criminal case currently pending in
this Court before Judge Reggie B. Walton. See United States v. O’Neal, Criminal No. 11-0355-1
(RBW). On March 27, 2013, a jury found O’Neal guilty of three counts of bank fraud and one
count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and mail fraud. See id. at Dkt. No. 111 (Verdict
Form). Her sentencing hearing is currently scheduled for September 4, 2013.
Ms. O’Neal filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus on February 11, 2013,
shortly before her jury trial commenced. In her petition, she asserts that her pretrial detention is
unlawful for the following reasons: (1) she is actually innocent, as “[t]here exists no Act
processed by Congress that could become a valid statute”; (2) this Court lacks subject matter and
personal jurisdiction; (3) the indictment failed to allege a federal crime; (4) the U.S. Attorney
failed to disclose relevant material facts during trial; (5) the indictment failed to allege material
elements of the crime; (6) counsel was ineffective; (7) there were incurable defects in the
indictment process; and (8) United States agents failed to disclose favorable evidence to the
defendant. Pet. at 2-6 (Dkt. No. 1). 1
“A court . . . entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith
award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not
be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not
entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Because a defendant may not use the habeas process to
collaterally attack an ongoing criminal proceeding in federal court, the Court finds that the
petitioner is not entitled to a writ of habeas corpus and therefore declines to issue a show cause
order.
Absent exceptional circumstances, a federal court may not entertain a habeas
corpus petition by a defendant seeking to challenge aspects of her ongoing federal criminal trial,
as “the hearing on habeas corpus is not intended as a substitute for the functions of a trial court.”
Pelley v. Botkin, 152 F.2d 12, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1945) (upholding dismissal of habeas petition where
petitioner sought to challenge validity of statute under which he was indicted in separate and
ongoing criminal proceedings); see also Gon v. Gonzales, 534 F. Supp. 2d 118, 119-20 (D.D.C.
2008) (dismissing habeas petition where petitioner could challenge pretrial detention order in
underlying criminal proceeding). Ms. O’Neal has had the opportunity to raise her objections in
the criminal case before Judge Walton, and she will have the opportunity to do so again on
appeal. She must pursue her objections in the underlying criminal proceeding before presenting
1
An application for the writ must “allege the facts concerning the applicant’s
commitment or detention, the name of the person who has custody over him and by virtue of
what claim or authority, if known.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. It is not clear where Ms. O’Neal is
detained, or whether she is detained at all. In her petition, she asserts that she currently is in the
custody of “Pretrial Services located at 333 Constitution Ave, Washington D.C. 20001,” which is
the address of the United States Courthouse. See Pet. at 9.
2
them in a habeas corpus petition. See Morrow v. Terrell, 715 F. Supp. 2d 479, 480 (S.D.N.Y.
2010) (“Because the issues that [petitioner] raises, if resolved in his favor, would be dispositive
of the underlying criminal charges for which he has been indicted, he must exhaust his claims at
trial and on direct appeal before he can assert them in a habeas action.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the petition of LaFrances Dudley O’Neal for a writ of
habeas corpus will be denied, and this action will be dismissed. An Order accompanies this
Memorandum Opinion.
/s/________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
DATE: August 9, 2013 United States District Judge
3