Williams v. Hackman
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Keith Wesley Edwards v. United States Attorney General (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2024)
- Kuhl v. Mendham (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Kuhl v. Garland (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2024)
- Keith Wesley Edwards v. United States Attorney General (United States District Court for the Central District of California 2024)
- Celli v. Paul (District Court, E.D. Kentucky 2022)
- Cassaday v. United States (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Cassaday 71417-509 v. Mendham (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Cassaday v. Mendham (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Cassaday 71417-509 v. Woods (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2022)
- Maclin v. United States of America (District Court, E.D. Wisconsin 2022)
- Mosley v. Fine (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2021)
- Grady v. Franke (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2021)
- Grady v. Aragona (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2021)
- Cox v. United States (District Court, W.D. Kentucky 2021)
- Nettles v. Newaygo County Jail (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2021)
- Nettles v. Newaygo County Jail (District Court, W.D. Michigan 2021)
- Broussard v. United States (D. Minn. 2021)
- Dillon v. Wolf (District Court, S.D. Illinois 2020)
- Medina v. Choate (10th Cir. 2017)
- Phillips v. Caruana (District Court, N.D. Illinois 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
Gary Williams, a federal pretrial detainee, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that his continued confinement violates his statutory right to a speedy trial. Williams filed his petition in the Northern District of Illinois while confined temporarily in Chicago, but the underlying prosecution is in the Eastern District of Virginia. He seeks dismissal of the indictment. The district court denied the petition without prejudice to Williams seeking relief in the district where the prosecution is pending.
Even though Williams mentions the Sixth Amendment in his appellate brief, his petition was premised entirely on the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74. By failing to develop a constitutional argument, Williams waived any Sixth Amendment claim. See United States v. Loera, 565 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 654, —L.Ed.2d — (2009). As for the statutory claim, the Speedy Trial Act allows dismissal of an indictment if the time constraints of the Act are not followed, 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459, 462 (7th Cir. 2009), but a district court in Chicago has no authority to dismiss an indictment pending in another district, see United States v. Green, 499 F.2d 538, 539 (D.C.Cir. 1974). In any event, a federal pretrial detainee cannot use § 2241 to preempt the judge presiding over the criminal case. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-92, 38 S.Ct. 166, 62 L.Ed. 358 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in advance of a trial.”); Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018-19 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) (stating that federal defendants cannot use § 2241 to challenge pretrial detention orders that can be chal
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.