United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
Cynthia Reed Eddy United States Magistrate Judge
Mark Antoine Nixon (“Petitioner” or
“Nixon”) filed the instant Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. At the time Nixon
filed this petition, he was a pretrial detainee confined in
the Allegheny County Jail awaiting disposition of state
criminal charges on two criminal cases: CP-02-CR-1140-2015
docket sheet for Petitioner's state criminal cases are
available online and this Court takes judicial notice of
them. Those dockets reflect that both cases are in the
pretrial stages and both cases are scheduled for trial before
President Judge Jeffrey A. Manning on February 28, 2017.
Petitioner is represented in both cases by attorney Patrick
instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner
alleges denial of his right to a speedy trial and ineffective
assistance of counsel for “failing to raise speedy
trial bail and prompt trial rule and necessary motions on my
behalf.” Petitioner further claims that he is being
denied access to the courts because Judge Manning has failed
to consider each of his pro se filings “as a hybrid
representation, and fail to understand that my attorney of
record refuses to file the petitioners/motions on my
behalf.” He requests that this Court issue an order
granting immediate dismissal of all charges against him with
clear that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief at
this time. First, to the extent that he has raised any
federal constitutional claims in his Petition, he has failed
to exhaust them. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1); see also
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515 (1982); Pace v.
DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 416-17 (1982); Ellison v.
Rogers, 484 F.3d 658, 662-63 (3d Cir. 2007). As
explained by our court of appeals in Moore v.
DeYoung, 515 F.3d 437, 443 (3d Cir. 1975),
“jurisdiction without exhaustion should not be
exercised at the pre-trial stage unless extraordinary
circumstances are present.” (emphasis added).
Petitioner has presented no allegations that support a
finding of “extraordinary circumstances” and
therefore has not made a showing of the need for adjudication
by this Court at this time on the merits of his unexhausted
state remedies. Moore, 515 F.3d at 447. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss Nixon's habeas petition without
prejudice. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982).
the Court notes that Petitioner's pro se filings
have not required action by the state court as he is
represented by counsel and Pennsylvania does not permit
hybrid representation. Commonwealth v. Ali, 10 A.3d
282, 293 (Pa. 2010). Because Nixon does not have the right to
hybrid representation, he does not have the right to demand
that the state trial court address his pro se
motions on the merits.
where state court remedies are unexhausted, “principles
of federalism and comity require district courts to abstain
from enjoining pending state criminal proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances.” Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1981); Moore, 515 F.2d at
447-48. Younger abstention will apply when:
“(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are
judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings
afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal
claims.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
670 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Addiction Specialist, Inc. v.
Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir. 2005)). If
the three Younger requirements are satisfied,
abstention is required unless the petitioner demonstrates
that the state proceedings are motivated by bad faith, the
state law being challenged is patently unconstitutional, or
there is no adequate alternative state forum where the
constitutional issues can be raised. Id. at 670 n. 4
(citing Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.
1989)). These exceptions are to be construed “very
narrowly” and invoked only in “extraordinary
circumstances.” Id.; Moore, 515 F.2d
at 448. See also Brian R. Means, POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES,
§ 10.3 Younger abstention (July 2012).
there is are ongoing state judicial proceedings, as
Petitioner is a defendant in two state criminal prosecutions,
and it is clear that granting his request for relief would
interfere with those proceedings. In addition the state's
criminal cases against him undoubtedly implicate the
important state interests of the state's enforcement of
its criminal laws. Finally, Petitioner does have the
opportunity to raise constitutional claims in the context of
his state criminal proceedings. Thus, Petitioner's claims
concerning his ongoing criminal proceedings satisfy the
requirements of abstention, and the instant habeas action
does not raise the type of extraordinary circumstances
contemplated under Younger.
upon all of the foregoing, Petitioner is not entitled to a
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The
Petition will be dismissed for failure to exhaust. The denial
of this Petition is without prejudice to Petitioner's
ability to timely file another habeas petition, under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2241 as the circumstances
require, following proper exhaustion of available state court
remedies and satisfaction of any other applicable procedural
appropriate Order follows.