Verlander v. Mills

1 / 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ADAM VERLANDER,
Petitioner,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00162
WILLIAM MILLS,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS 2241 HABEAS ACTION
Petitioner, Adam Verlander, is a pretrial inmate in the Aransas County Detention
Center in Rockport, Texas. He is appearing in this matter without counsel. Petitioner files
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking habeas relief in connection with his state
pretrial detention in a pending criminal case. For the reasons discussed below, it is
RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service
pursuant to the screening provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Actions
because it is clear the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction in accordance with
the Younger abstention doctrine.1 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
1Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides authority to summarily dismiss frivolous habeas petitions
upon preliminary review, prior to any answer or other pleading by the state. Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th
Cir. 1999). Specifically, the rule states that “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify
the petitioner.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4. This power of the district court is rooted in “the duty of the court to screen
out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary
answer.” Kiser, 163 F.3d at 328 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7

2 / 7
I. JURISDICTION
This is a 2241 habeas petition in which Petitioner challenges his pretrial detention
in a state criminal case. Petitioner is currently incarcerated at the Aransas County Detention
Center in Rockport, Texas. Aransas County is within the jurisdiction of the Southern
District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(6). The Fifth Circuit has held that the district of
incarceration is the only district that has jurisdiction to entertain a § 2241 petition. See Lee
v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001). However, the Court should decline to exercise
jurisdiction under the Younger doctrine, as set forth below. This case has been referred to
the undersigned for case management including making dispositive recommendations
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
II. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a pretrial detainee and on June 8, 2026, the Court received his § 2241
petition where he complained about several matters relating to his pending state criminal
charges for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon-family violence and possession of a
controlled substance, requesting dismissal of the charges or being released on his own
recognizance. (D.E. 1).2
Concurrently with Petitioner being granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis
on June 23, 2026, the undersigned ordered the Clerk of Court to mail Petitioner a blank
2A review of the Aransas County Detention Center inmate search shows Petitioner was arrested
on April 9, 2026 and charged with “Agg Assault Date/Family/House W/Weapon SBI; Poss CS PG
1/1-B>=4G<200G; [and] Unl Poss Firearm By Felon.” https://www.aransascounty.org/detention
center/inmates/php?PAGE=16&sb=1 (last visited July 16, 2026). His total bond amount is
$30,000.00. Id.
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7

3 / 7
form for a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and further ordered
Petitioner to complete the form and return it to the Court on or before July 20, 2026. (D.E.
8). Petitioner was advised that federal courts typically do not intervene in pending state
criminal cases. (D.E. 8) (citing Valentinis-Dee v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff, No. CV H-25-
694, 2025 WL 1413404, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 15, 2025) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37 (1971)). Petitioner was further warned his case is subject to summary dismissal
but he was being given an opportunity to state his habeas claims more clearly. (D.E. 8,
Page 1). Subsequently, on July 1 and 15, 2026, the Court received two, separate amended
petitions. (D.E. 11 and D.E. 12). The operative pleading is his most recently filed July 15,
2026 Petition. (D.E. 12).
Petitioner has a criminal case pending against him in Aransas County, Texas, in case
number A-26-5135-CR. Petitioner complains of being held in pretrial detention in violation
of due process of law, asserting his “petition for writ of habeas corpus was ignored by
Aransas County’s Court Clerk” and he has “been denied [his] right to have an examining
trial.” (D.E. 12, Pages 2 and 6). Petitioner states he has been “waiting on an examining
trial and an answer from my attorney for the petition for habeas corpus I filed in state
court.” (D.E. 12, Page 2). He provides no further information about his claims and requests
the state charges against him be dismissed with prejudice or that he be released on his
recognizance. (D.E. 12, Page 7).
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7

4 / 7
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS
A petition under § 2241 provides a basis for relief for prisoners who are “in custody
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
2241(c)(3). A Section 2241 habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal if it appears
from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Wottlin v. Fleming,
136 F.3d 1032, 1034 (5th Cir. 1998) (affirming summary dismissal of Section 2241 petition
without ordering an answer from respondent).
A state pretrial detainee is entitled, in some circumstances, to raise constitutional
claims concerning the fact or duration of his detention in a habeas petition filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dickerson v. Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 1987).
However, a state petitioner in custody must exhaust all available state remedies before
pursuing habeas relief in federal court. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410
U.S. 484 (1973). While habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy for an individual held in
custody in violation of the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has held that
district courts should not grant relief in habeas actions “where an adequate remedy
available in the criminal proceeding has not been exhausted.” Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 6
(1951).
This Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over this petition under Younger.
401 U.S. at 54. Younger requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction
when: (1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an “ongoing state judicial
proceeding;” (2) the state has an important interest in regulating the subject matter of the
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7

5 / 7
claim; and (3) the plaintiff has “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
constitutional challenges.” Bice v. La. Pub. Defender Bd., 677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir.
2012); see also Kolski v. Watkins, 544 F.2d 762, 766 (5th Cir. 1977) (a [p]etitioner must
satisfy the Younger abstention hurdles before [a court] may give habeas relief”).
The Fifth Circuit has consistently held that federal courts should abstain from
exercising jurisdiction over pretrial habeas claims if the issues raised in the petition may
be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other state procedures
available to the petitioner. See Dickerson, 816 F.2d at 225; Brown v. Estelle, 530 F.2d
1280, 1284 (5th Cir. 1976). Federal habeas relief should not be used as a “pre-trial motion
forum for state prisoners.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 493. Exceptions to the exhaustion
requirement apply only in extraordinary circumstances. Fuller v. Rich, 11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th
Cir. 1994) (per curiam ).
Petitioner’s claims meet all three requirements for abstention under Younger. A
decision by this Court on Petitioner’s claims would interfere with the ongoing state
criminal court proceedings against him. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 41; Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v.
Earle, 388 F.3d 515, 518 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Under the rule set out by [Younger], federal
courts must refrain from considering requests for injunctive relief based upon constitutional
challenges to state criminal proceedings pending at the time the federal action is
instituted.”) The State of Texas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws.
See DeSpain v. Johnston, 731 F.2d 1171, 1176 (5th Cir. 1984). Petitioner has not shown
any reason why he has not had an adequate opportunity to raise his claims in the state court
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7

6 / 7
proceedings and has not shown extraordinary circumstances setting him apart from other
criminal defendants raising claims of constitutional error in their cases. Petitioner should
raise his claims in the state court proceedings and again on appeal before the state appellate
court, if necessary.
Petitioner should not be granted further leave to amend because Petitioner has been
granted leave to amend, and he has been warned of his pleading deficiencies. (D.E. 8). In
the Order directing Petitioner to amend, the undersigned warned Petitioner that his Petition
was subject to dismissal under the Younger abstention doctrine. (D.E. 8). Further
amendment would be futile because Petitioner cannot cure the instant deficiencies.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS this case be DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.
Respectfully submitted on July 21, 2026.
_______________________________
Jason B. Libby
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7

7 / 7
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within FOURTEEN
(14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon grounds of
plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal
conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Case 2:26-cv-00162 Document 13 Filed 07/21/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7