Roland v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
ERIN ROLAND,1
Petitioner,
vs.
EARL HOUSER,
Respondent. Case No. 3:21-cv-00135-RRB
SCREENING ORDER
Erin Roland, representing himself from Goose Creek Correctional Center,
has filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that the state court is
violating his rights in two state criminal cases in which he is a pretrial detainee.2
He alleges:
(1) “Speedy Trial Violation [under] 18 [U.S.C.] § 3161(h),” citing “McNeely v.
Blanas, 336 F.3d 822. The state is responsible for the delay of my case 3 plus years
impaired the memories of the witness. I will never have a fair trial.”3
1 Erin Roland filed his petition with his first and last names reversed. Docket 1. The Court will
change the caption in this action to reflect that Erin is the first name and Roland is the last name
of the petitioner, so as to address the correct state court cases being challenged. See footnotes
below regarding judicial notice and state court cases.
2 Docket 1 (referencing 3AN-18-00316CR and 3AN-20-08905CR). Mr. Roland has also filed an
application to waive the $5.00 filing fee for this case, and a motion for appointment of counsel.
Dockets 3, 4.
3 Id. at 6–7.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 2 of 12
(2) “Ineffective Counsel – All 4 counsel … in not upholding the rights of
defendant 	Roland 	Erin 	to 	have 	effective 	assistance 	of 	counsel…. 	acts 	of
dishonesty, obstruction of justice.”4
(3) “‘Due Process’ Violation! 	3 years without meaningful participation. 4
counsel that will avoid my request of due process. NO Remedy!”5
(4) “‘Obstruction of Justice.’ Covid-19 is not a[n] excuse for delays. 	All 4
counsel (state appointed) are in conspiracy with the DA, Judge by allowing
corruption in the superior court. 	Delay after delay without my consent…. 	This
must go to the 9th Cir. in California out of Alaska - & appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court.”6
For relief, Mr. Roland wants this Court to “dismiss my case for violation of
speedy trial, due process & obstruction of justice.”7
The Court takes notice judicial notice8 that, in Alaska Superior Court Case
No. 3AN-18-00316CR, Mr. Roland was arraigned on Class C felony forgery and
4 Id. at 7.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 8.
7 Id.
8 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a
party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact....” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019);
see also Foster Poultry Farms v. Alkar-Rapidpak-MP Equip., Inc., 868 F. Supp. 2d 983, 990 (E.D.
Cal. 2012) (“Courts routinely take judicial notice of publicly available records ... from other court
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 3 of 12
theft charges in December 2018, and he was charged with misdemeanor charges
of violating the conditions of his release on both January 10, 2018, and June 15,
2019; and that in Case No. 3AN-20-08905CR, he was arraigned in November 2020
for a Class C felony of escape, and Class A misdemeanors involving resisting
arrest, assault, and violating conditions of release for a felony.9
The Supreme Court for the State of Alaska and its Chief Justice have issued
Special Orders regarding COVID-19 and criminal jury trials. 	Trials involving both
felonies and misdemeanors are being held, after being postponed beginning on
March 15, 2020, when Alaska’s speedy trial rule was suspended.10 	In the spring
and summer of this year, vaccinations for COVID-19 were being given to Alaskans
in more significant numbers,11 and trials gradually resumed.
The 	public 	record 	shows 	that 	a 	trial 	setting 	conference 	was 	set 	for
November 26, 2019, within a year of Mr. Roland’s arraignment in his 2018 case,
but that Mr. Roland failed to appear, and a warrant for his arrest was issued.12 The
proceedings.”) (citing Engine Mfrs. Ass’n v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist.,
498 F.3d 1031, 1039 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2007) (additional citation omitted)); Fed. R. Evid. 201.
9 See https://records.courts.alaska.gov/eaccess/searchresults, State of Alaska v. Erin Alonzo
Roland, 3AN-18-00316CR and 3AN-20-08905CR.
10 See http://www.courts.alaska.gov/covid19/index.htm#socj.
11 See id.; https://alaska-coronavirus-vaccine-outreach-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com (as of 7/2/21,
637,798 Covid-19 vaccine doses had been given in Alaska).
12 Alaska v. Roland, 3AN-18-00316CR.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 3 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 4 of 12
court record in the case also shows that his lawyer filed a motion to dismiss the
indictment on June 15, 2021, and the State of Alaska filed its opposition on
June 24, 2021.13 A discovery hearing is currently scheduled for July 13, 2021.14
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
Federal courts have general habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.15
A petitioner may properly challenge state pretrial detention under § 2241.16 But a
court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition, and “if it plainly appears from the
motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving
party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion...” 17 In conducting
its review of a self-represented litigant’s pleadings, a court must liberally construe
the pleadings and give the petitioner the benefit of the doubt.18
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999).
16 See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885–88 (9th Cir. 2004).
17 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
The same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2255 govern 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
18 See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026,
1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc)).
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 4 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 5 of 12
DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being
detained or held in custody by the government.19 	The writ “is a vital ‘instrument
for the protection of individual liberty’ against government power.”20 	28 U.S.C. §
2241 provides federal courts with general habeas corpus jurisdiction21 over a
prisoner “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.”22
I. 	Appropriate Relief
Section 2241 is the proper avenue for a state prisoner who wishes to
challenge state custody without a state judgment.23 	When examining a § 2241
petition from a pretrial detainee claiming a violation of his or her right to a speedy
trial, a significant delay in the proceedings must be shown.24 In his 2018 criminal
19 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 474 (2004).
20 Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015); quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S.
723, 743 (2008).
21 See Magana-Pizano, 200 F.3d at 608 & n.4.
22 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
23 Stow, 389 F.3d at 886 (“By contrast, the general grant of habeas authority in § 2241 is available
for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment-for
example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition.”) (quoting White v. Lambert,
370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)).
24 See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530–31 (1972).
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 5 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 6 of 12
case, Mr. Roland was arraigned just over 2½ years ago.25 And in the 2020 case,
Mr. Roland was arraigned less than eight months ago, and a pretrial conference
was held in that case on May 4, 2021.26
In McNeely v. Blanas, the Ninth Circuit found a delay of three years to be
substantial, such that prejudice was presumed, triggering an inquiry under Barker
v. Wingo.27 The four-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Barker is used
to 	determine 	whether 	government 	delay 	had 	abridged 	a 	defendant’s 	Sixth
Amendment right to a speedy trial.28 	The factors to be considered in a Barker
inquiry include: “(1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the
accused’s assertion of the right to speedy trial; and (4) the prejudice caused by the
delay. No single factor is necessary or sufficient.”29
For relief, Mr. Hall requests that the Court dismiss his cases.30 	A speedy
trial claim may be reviewed under § 2241 if a pretrial detainee is seeking to compel
25 See Alaska v. Roland, 3AN-18-00316CR.
26 See Alaska v. Roland, 3AN-20-08905CR.
27 McNeely, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003); Barker, 407 U.S. at 530.
28 McNeely, 336 F.3d at 826 (citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 652 n.1 (1992)).
29 Id. (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530); see also United States v. Sheikh, No. 2:18-cr-00119 WBS,
___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 5995226, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2020) (Discussing the right to a
speedy trial in a federal criminal case, explaining that “the coronavirus alone does not give the
court the liberty to simply exclude time. Rather, the court must conduct a ‘deliberate inquir[y] into
whether an ends-of-justice continuance is justified by the circumstances surrounding a particular
case.’”) (citation omitted).
30 Docket 1 at 8.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 6 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 7 of 12
the state to bring him to trial, but federal courts do not address the merits
underlying the state charges.31
II. 	Abstention
The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal courts may not
generally exercise jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with state judicial
proceedings.32 	The core of Younger abstention is that a federal court cannot
interfere with pending state court criminal proceedings, absent a “showing of bad
faith, harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable
relief.”33 A federal court
must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a state-
initiated 	proceeding 	is 	ongoing; 	(2) 	the 	proceeding 	implicates
important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from
31 See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489–90 (1973) (“Petitioner
does not, however, seek at this time to litigate a federal defense to a criminal charge, but only to
demand enforcement of the Commonwealth’s affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him
promptly to trial.”) (citation omitted); McNeely, 336 F.3d at 832 (“Because his Sixth Amendment
right to a speedy trial has been violated, Petitioner should be immediately released from custody
with prejudice to re-prosecution of the criminal charges. See Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S.
434, 439–40 … (1973) (holding that violation of Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights requires
dismissal).”); Stow, 389 F.3d 880 (affirming habeas relief for state pre-trial detainee who claimed
double jeopardy); Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2018) (a state pretrial detainee
should bring federal double-jeopardy challenge under § 2241).
32 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971).
33 Younger, 401 U.S. at 54; see also Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980) (In Perez
v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971), the Supreme Court “limited the category of ‘extraordinary
circumstances’ to encompass only ‘cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by
state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,’ or where ‘irreparable injury
can be shown.’”); Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2012) (“Consistent with this
observation, we specifically rejected in Carden the argument that a claimed violation of the
Speedy Trial Clause … sufficed in and of itself as an independent ‘extraordinary circumstance’
necessitating pre-trial habeas consideration.”) (citing Carden at 84).
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 7 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 8 of 12
litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and
(4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the
practical 	effect 	of 	doing 	so, 	i.e., 	would 	interfere 	with 	the 	state
proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.34
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has directly addressed abstention,
regarding a claim that a state court violated the right to a speedy trial, explaining:
Younger does not “require[ ] a district court to abstain from hearing a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of
pretrial detention in state court” where (1) the procedure challenged
in the petition is distinct from the underlying criminal prosecution and
the challenge would not interfere with the prosecution, or (2) full
vindication 	of 	the 	petitioner’s 	pretrial 	rights 	requires 	intervention
before trial.35
The State of Alaska has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws,
and Mr. Roland’s criminal cases in the state courts remain ongoing. Mr. Roland’s
allegation, that he is being denied his right to a speedy trial in state court, should
be addressed in his state court criminal proceedings.36 	This Court should not
interfere with the trial court’s fact-finding responsibilities and legal decisions in that
case, unless “full vindication of the petitioner’s pretrial rights requires intervention
before trial.”37
34 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose,
546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
35 Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 903 (9th Cir. 2019) (citing Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 764, 766–67).
36 See Brown, 676 F.3d at 900–01 (A “federal court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a habeas petition
that raises an affirmative defense to state prosecution before trial and conviction can have the
same effect as a direct injunction of ongoing state proceedings.”) (citing Carden, 626 F.2d at 83).
37 Page, 932 F.3d at 903.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 8 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 9 of 12
Given that Mr. Roland skipped out on his trial setting conference, and that
there is now a motion to dismiss the indictment before the Superior Court, the 2018
state case is not a case requiring federal intervention. Likewise, because a pretrial
conference was held on May 4, 2021, in his 2020 case, less than six months after
arraignment, this too is not a case requiring federal intervention.38
III. 	Exhaustion
Exhaustion is required under common law before bringing a federal petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.39 	Although there is no
statutory exhaustion requirement for a petition brought under § 2241, principles of
federalism 	and 	comity 	require 	the 	court 	to 	abstain 	until 	all 	state 	criminal
proceedings are completed, and the petitioner exhausts the available state judicial
remedies, unless special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a
state criminal trial are found. A violation of the right to a speedy trial is not, alone,
an extraordinary circumstance warranting federal intervention.40 	Before bringing
38 See Alaska v. Roland, 3AN-20-08905CR.
39 See Braden, 410 U.S. at 488 (allowing petitioner to raise speedy trial claim prior to trial under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, where he had exhausted available state remedies); Stow, 389 F.3d at 886;
Reem v. Hennessy, Case No. 17-cv-06628-CRB, 2017 WL 6765247, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29,
2017) (“The exhaustion requirement addresses the same concerns of comity between federal and
state courts as Younger does. 	See Dickerson v. State of La., 816 F.2d 220, 225–26 (5th Cir.
1987) (‘The exhaustion doctrine of section 2241(c)(3) was judicially crafted on federalism grounds
in order to protect the state courts’ opportunity to confront and resolve initially any constitutional
issues arising within their jurisdictions as well as to limit federal interference in the state
adjudicatory process.’).”).
40 Carden, 626 F.2d at 83–85.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 9 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 10 of 12
a federal speedy trial claim, Mr. Roland must first exhaust all available state court
remedies as to his claim.41
IV. 	Frivolous Claims
Mr. Roland brings his speedy trial claim because he was arrested and
arraigned 2½ years ago, on charges still pending.42 However, his assertions that
the state courts have used Covid-19 as an excuse to delay trials within the last
year as part of a conspiracy, are frivolous.
Frivolousness may include not only allegations that “lack an arguable basis
in either law or in fact,” but allegations that are clearly “fanciful,” “baseless,”
“fantastic,” or “delusional.”43 	As explained by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit:
The 	global 	COVID-19 	pandemic 	has 	proven 	to 	be
extraordinarily serious and deadly. In response, many state and local
governments entered declarations curtailing operations of businesses
41 See, e.g., Stack, 342 U.S. at 6-7 (“While habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy for one held
in custody in violation of the Constitution, … 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(c)(3), the District Court should
withhold relief in this collateral habeas corpus action where an adequate remedy available in the
criminal proceeding has not been exhausted.”) (citation omitted); Webb v. Simpson, Case
No. 3:19-CV-5561-BHS-DWC, 2020 WL 589818 at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 6, 2020) (slip op.)
(“Petitioner alleges his constitutional rights are being violated, including violations of his right to
be free from excessive bail and his right to a speedy trial.… Petitioner has not shown there is an
absence of available state corrective processes or that circumstances exist rendering any state
process ineffective.”).
42 See Docket 1 at 6. Mr. Roland’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) is misplaced, because the
federal Speedy Trial Act does not apply to trials in state courts. However, state court defendants
still have a right to a speedy trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
43 Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31–33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
325–28 (1989)).
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 10 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 11 of 12
and governmental entities that interact with the public. 	Beginning on
March 13, 2020, the Central District of California—in light of the
exigent 	circumstances 	brought 	on 	by 	the 	pandemic 	and 	the
emergencies declared by federal and state officials—issued a series
of emergency orders….
Each order was entered upon unanimous or majority votes of
the district judges of the Central District with the stated purpose “to
protect public health” and “to reduce the size of public gatherings and
reduce unnecessary travel,” consistent with the recommendations of
public health authorities.44
The Covid-19 pandemic is real.45 The Court will not grant relief based upon
frivolous claims of conspiracies.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. 	This case is DISMISSED without prejudice to pursuing appropriate
claims in the state criminal cases.
2. 	All outstanding motions are DENIED.
3. 	The 	Court, 	having 	concluded 	that 	Petitioner 	has 	not 	made 	a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, DENIES a certificate of
44 United States v. Olsen, 995 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
45 See https://alaska-coronavirus-vaccine-outreach-alaska-dhss.hub.arcgis.com (as of 7/2/21,
over 33 million Covid-19 cases and over 600,000 deaths in the U.S.; 68,478 Covid-19 cases and
370 Alaska resident deaths; and nearly 4 million Covid-19 deaths reported worldwide).
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 11 of 12

Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB, Roland v. Houser
Screening Order
Page 12 of 12
appealability.46 	Any further request for a Certificate of Appealability must be
addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.47
4. 	The Clerk of Court shall file a Judgment accordingly.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska this 7th day of July, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
46 See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1). Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability,
an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from--
(a) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of
arises out of process issued by a State court …
(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has
made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue
or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
See Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668, 705 (2004) (“To obtain a certificate of appealability,
a prisoner must ‘demonstrat[e] that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’” (citation omitted); see also Wilson v.
Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009) (“We conclude that the mere fact that a habeas
petition is filed pursuant to § 2241(c)(3) does not exempt that petition from § 2253(c)(1)(A)'s
COA requirement
For the reasons set forth in this Order, Mr. Roland has not made a substantial showing
of the denial of a constitutional right, or that jurists of reason could disagree with the district
court’s resolution, or that he deserves encouragement to proceed further. Banks, 540 U.S. at
705. 	Mr. Roland has not been incarcerated for a substantial time under federal law, especially
considering the pandemic that delayed criminal proceedings nation-wide, and Mr. Roland’s
failure to appear for his trial scheduling conference prior to the pandemic. Mr. Roland may
make his arguments in his 2020 state criminal proceedings.
47 See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); 9th Cir. R. 22-1.
Case 3:21-cv-00135-RRB Document 6 Filed 07/07/21 Page 12 of 12