Sheldon Summers v. State of North Carolina

No. 5:26-cv-00103-MR (W.D.N.C. May 6, 2026) · United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Statesville Division · May 6, 2026 · No. 5:26-cv-00103-MR

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina reviewed Sheldon Summers’s pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted in forma pauperis status but denied and dismissed the petition without prejudice because Summers had not exhausted available North Carolina state-court remedies.

Holdings

  1. A pretrial detainee is not in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment and therefore may not obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the exclusive federal habeas remedy for alleged unconstitutional pretrial confinement is § 2241(c)(3).
  2. A federal habeas petitioner proceeding under § 2241 must exhaust available state remedies before filing, even though § 2241 does not expressly contain the exhaustion language found in § 2254.
  3. Summers failed to exhaust his state remedies because he did not show that he had completed one full round of North Carolina's established appellate review process.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a pretrial detainee may obtain federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 without first fully exhausting available state remedies.
  2. Whether Summers had exhausted North Carolina's established appellate review process before filing his § 2241 petition.
  3. Whether the petition should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (7)

  • Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th Cir. 1970)(followed)
  • Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004)(followed)
  • Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir., 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973)(followed)
  • Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975)(followed)
  • Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275-77 (1971)(followed)
  • O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…