REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

RICHARD A. LANZILLO, Magistrate Judge.

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Recommendation

It is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Quiydaar Muhammad (Petitioner) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

II. Report

In two nearly-identical § 2241 actions filed at docket numbers 1:19-cv-159 and 1:19-cv-160, Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of Suzanne C. Mack, a Pennsylvania Magisterial District Judge (Respondent), in connection with several traffic citations that Petitioner received on May 21, 2019. In the instant case, Petitioner objects to the pending proceedings at magisterial district court number MJ-6101-TR-0178-2019. ECF No. 1 at 2. In the separate habeas action filed at civil action number 1:19-cv-159, Petitioner objects to similar traffic court proceedings at magisterial district court number MJ-6101-TR-0179-2019.1 Although he lists a private address as his address of record, Petitioner purports to be a pretrial detainee and alleges "coercion," "unlawful summary offense & citation," and that he was the "unlawful[] subject of warrant for arrest without disclosure of nature & cause of jurisdiction over the petitioner." Id. at 1. As of this date, the magisterial district court docket for each of Petitioner's underlying criminal cases designates him as "awaiting plea" with respect to all charges.

"For state prisoners, federal habeas corpus is substantially a post-conviction remedy." Mosley, 2016 WL 7175466, at *1 (quoting Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 448 (3d Cir. 1975) (brackets omitted)). Thus, a state prisoner who is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court must ordinarily file a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 484-86 (3d Cir. 2001). However, when an individual is in custody for reasons other than the judgment of a state court, such as in pretrial detention, a petition for writ of habeas corpus may be properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Moore, 515 F.2d at 441-43.

Apropos to the instant case, a court may summarily dismiss a habeas petition prior to service if it plainly appears on its face that Petitioner is not entitled to the habeas relief he is seeking. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (which is applicable to § 2241 cases) (providing that a court must dismiss a habeas petition if it appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief). See also Mosley v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2016 WL 7175466, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2016) (summarily dismissing § 2241 petition prior to service for lack of jurisdiction and failure to exhaust). For each of the reasons that follow, summary dismissal is warranted in this case.

First, and most critically, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a writ of habeas corpus filed be a petitioner who is not "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." § 2241(c)(3) (emphasis added). It does not appear that Petitioner can satisfy this requirement. The address of record provided by Petitioner is a private residence, and a review of the magisterial district court dockets reveals that Petitioner has not been detained or issued a custodial sentence. Since Petitioner is not "in custody" as a consequence of any state court judgment or detention that he is challenging in this case, his habeas petition must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) ("The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody"); Barry v. Bergen Co. Probation Dep't, 128 F.3d 152, 160 (3rd Cir. 1997) ("[C]ourts continue to recognize that this custody requirement is designed to limit the availability of habeas review to cases of special urgency"); United States ex rel. Dessus v. Pennsylvania, 452 F.2d 557, 559-61 (3d Cir. 1971) (federal court lacked jurisdiction over habeas petition since petitioner was not detained pursuant to the conviction he was challenging). See also Brian R. Means, Federal Habeas Manual § 1:3 (June 2015) ("The custody requirement is jurisdictional.")

Even if the Court had jurisdiction to entertain Petitioner's pretrial habeas corpus petition, Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims in state court. Although§ 2241 does not contain an explicit statutory exhaustion requirement, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has consistently required a petitioner to exhaust his remedies before filing a § 2241 petition. See, e.g., Moscato v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 98 F.3d 757, 760 (3d Cir. 1996). In order to exhaust a claim, a petitioner must "fairly present" it to each level of the state courts. Lines v. Larkins, 208 F.3d 153, 159 (3d Cir. 2000). It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that he has raised his claims in the proper state forums through the proper state vehicles, not just that he raised a federal constitutional claim before a state court at some point. O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Absent extraordinary circumstances, this requirement applies with equal force to a pre-trial detainee. Moore, 515 F.2d at 443 ("[J]urisdiction without exhaustion should not be exercised at the pre-trial stage unless extraordinary circumstances are present."); Mosley, 2016 WL 7175466, at *2 (dismissing § 2241 petition filed by pre-trial detainee for lack of exhaustion). Because it is plainly apparent from the face of Petitioner's habeas petition that he has yet to exhaust his claims in state court, his petition must be dismissed.

Finally, it is well-established that "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, 43-44 (1971). Abstention is proper when: 1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing judicial proceeding; 2) important state interests are implicated in the state action; and 3) the state proceedings offer sufficient opportunity to raise the claims asserted in federal court. Anthony v. Council, 316 F.3d 412, 418 (3d Cir. 2003). Here, it is clear from both the face of the petition and a review of the underlying magisterial district court dockets that there is an ongoing state criminal prosecution and that granting relief in this case would interfere with those proceedings. The pending criminal case against Petitioner "undoubtedly implicates the important state interests of the state's enforcement of its criminal laws." Mosley, 2016 WL 7175466, at *2. Nor do Petitioner's allegations fall within the "extraordinary circumstances" exceptions to Younger, to wit: where the state court 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. Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 2010); Mosley, 2016 WL 7175466, at *2. Under such circumstances, Petitioner's allegations are barred by the Younger abstention doctrine and must be dismissed.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully recommended that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed prior to service, with prejudice.2

IV. Notice

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, the parties may seek review by the district court by filing Objections to the Report and Recommendation within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Any party opposing the objections shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of Objections to respond thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of appellate rights. See Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 194 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011); Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2007).