Holloway v. USA et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Dale E. Holloway, Jr.
v. Civil No. 21-cv-456-JD
State of New Hampshire, et al.
O R D E R
Dale E. Holloway, Jr., who is an inmate at the New
Hampshire State Prison, brought a pro se petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 in which he challenged his pretrial detention at
the Hillsborough County Department of Corrections (“HCDOC”). On
preliminary review, the magistrate judge concluded that Holloway
did not allege a cognizable claim under § 2241 and recommended
that the petition be dismissed without prejudice. After seeking
and being granted extensions of time, Holloway filed an
objection to the report and recommendation.
Background
Holloway filed the petition in this case while he was being
held in pretrial detention in two criminal cases in New
Hampshire state courts.
In State v. Holloway, No. 226-2019-cr-814 (N.H. Super. Ct.,
Hillsborough Cty.-S.D.) (“Holloway I”) Holloway is charged with
attempted murder, assault, and being a felon in possession of a
Case 1:21-cv-00456-JD Document 12 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 5

2
firearm, which arose from a shooting at a church in Pelham, New
Hampshire. Holloway I remains pending, and Holloway is
representing himself.
While charges in Holloway I were pending, Holloway was
charged and then convicted of assaulting the attorney who was
representing him in Holloway I. State v. Holloway, No. 216-
2019-cr-1856 (N.H. Super. Ct., Hillsborough Cty.-N.D.)
(“Holloway II”). Holloway was held without bail in pretrial
detention in both cases until he began serving his sentence of
seven and a half to fifteen years in Holloway II. Holloway
challenged the indictments and detention orders in Holloway I
and Holloway II in state court.
The magistrate judge identified the following claims raised
in Holloway’s § 2241 petition:
(1) that he was detained pretrial in Holloway II in
violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process,
(2) that the conditions of his confinement at the HCDOC
amounted to abuse and neglect,
(3) that his right to a speedy trial in both Holloway I and
Holloway II has been denied, and
(4) that the trials in those cases will place him in
jeopardy twice in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
By way of remedy, Holloway is seeking a hearing, release from
Case 1:21-cv-00456-JD Document 12 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 5

3
confinement, and dismissal of his state indictments. He is also
seeking temporary restraining orders directed at specific state
judges, the Hillsborough County Attorney’s Office, the
Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Department, and the New Hampshire
Attorney General’s Office to have them prevent the HCDOC from
abusing or neglecting Holloway.
In the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge held
that the Bail Reform Act, cited by Holloway, did not apply and
that the United States was not a proper party because Holloway
is a state prisoner. The magistrate judge held that Holloway’s
transfer to the New Hampshire State Prison caused his claims for
injunctive relief aimed at the conditions of his confinement at
HCDOC to be moot. Holloway’s claims related to detention based
on Holloway II were moot because of his conviction. The
magistrate judge concluded that the Younger abstention doctrine
applied to all of Holloway’s claims arising from Holloway I and
recommended that the court abstain from ruling on those claims.
In addition, the exhaustion requirement precluded the claims
arising from Holloway I. Based on those determinations, the
magistrate judge recommended that the court dismiss the § 2241
petition in its entirety, without prejudice, decline to issue a
certificate of appealability, enter judgment, and close the
case.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-JD Document 12 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 5

4
Discussion
The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is
reviewed by the district judge but only to the extent the
affected party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3); Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168
(1st Cir. 2016). Holloway has filed a lengthy and prolix
objection to the report and recommendation that primarily
attacks the proceedings in Holloway I and Holloway II. He
reiterates his allegations from his petition about his mental
illness and his challenges to pretrial detention and appears to
raise new and inapplicable theories. He submits letters
provided by family members and third parties.
To the extent Holloway addresses the merits of the report
and recommendation, Holloway asserts that the magistrate judge
is biased against him and has violated various provisions of the
New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct.1 In support of his
assertion of bias, Holloway points to rulings made against him
in a prior case he filed in this court, along with the adverse
report and recommendation in this case. A party’s
dissatisfaction with a judge’s rulings, however, do not support
a showing of bias. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
1 The New Hampshire rules apply to state court judges, not
to a magistrate judge in the federal system. Nevertheless,
Holloway has not shown any violation of those rules.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-JD Document 12 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 5

5
(1994); United States v. Laureano-Perez, 797 F.3d 45, 73-74 (1st
Cir. 2015). Nothing about the magistrate judge’s rulings in the
prior case or in this case show or even suggest bias.
Holloway presents no persuasive objection to the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the report and
recommendation to dismiss the petition in its entirety, without
prejudice, (document no. 4) is approved and adopted.
Because the petitioner has not made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right, no certificate of
appealability shall issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
The clerk of court shall enter judgment accordingly and
close the case.
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Joseph A DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
October 12, 2021
cc: Dale E. Holloway, Jr. pro se.
Case 1:21-cv-00456-JD Document 12 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 5