IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

NASIR BROWN : : v. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 22-2453 : MICHELLE FARRELL, et al. :

ORDER

This 20th day of December, 2022, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED AND ADOPTED;1 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust state court remedies; and 3. Petitioner has neither shown denial of a federal constitutional right, nor established that reasonable jurists would disagree with this court’s procedural disposition of his claims. A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

/s/ Gerald Austin McHugh United States District Judge

1 I separately note that Petitioner brings his Petition pursuant to

. § 2241 does explicitly address exhaustion. But “‘an exhaustion requirement has developed through decisional law, applying principles of federalism,’ and if a petitioner has not availed himself of state court remedies, the federal court must not exercise jurisdiction at the pre-trial stage absent ‘extraordinary circumstances.’” Sleets v. Pennsylvania, No. CV 16-930,

, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 16-930,

(E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2018) (quoting Moore v. DeYoung,

(3d Cir. 1975). In Moore, the Third Circuit explicitly stated that “although there is a distinction in the statutory language of §§ 2254 and 2241, there is no distinction insofar as the exhaustion requirement is concerned.”

. There are no extraordinary circumstance here to excuse Petitioner from the exhaustion requirement.