Houk, Philip v. Miami FDC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-cv-25823-ALTMAN
PHILIP HOUK,
Petitioner,
v.
R. D. MORRIS,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER
The Petitioner, Philip Houk, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. See Petition [ECF No. 1]. Houk challenges a federal judge’s decision to commit him to the
custody of the U.S. Attorney General, arguing that a “conflict of interest caused” his lawyer “to
commit fraud” before the court, that “no hearing was held,” and that the “expert evidence” the district
court relied on in finding Houk incompetent was “highly inaccurate” and “never challenged or
disclosed[.]” Id. at 6. He asks us to “set aside [the] District Court’s order,” “remand for [a] hearing,”
and “return [him] to the district” where he’s being prosecuted. Id. at 7. As we’ll explain, though, we
can’t adjudicate Houk’s Petition because he’s still challenging this same commitment order on appeal.
We therefore DISMISS the Petition.
T HE STANDARD
The federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, “authorizes a district court to grant a writ
of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.’” Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173, 1181–82 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C §
2241(c)(3)). “Pre-trial habeas petitions . . . are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which applies
to persons in custody regardless of whether final judgment has been rendered.” Stacey v. Warden,
Case 1:25-cv-25823-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
Apalachee Corr. Inst., 854 F.2d 401, 403 n.1 (11th Cir. 1988) (cleaned up). A district court may not grant
a § 	2241 	petition 	unless 	the 	petitioner 	has 	first 	exhausted 	all 	available 	administrative
remedies. See Skinner v. Wiley, 355 F.3d 1293, 1295 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[We] hold that prisoners seeking
habeas 	relief, 	including 	relief 	pursuant 	to § 	2241, 	are 	subject 	to 	administrative 	exhaustion
requirements.”), overruled on other grounds by Santiago-Lugo v. Warden, 785 F.3d 467, 471–72 (11th Cir.
2015).
The Supreme Court has long held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted before trial
if a criminal defendant has the opportunity to challenge the legality of his prosecution in his criminal
case. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional
circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus
should not be granted in advance of a trial.”); Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 274
(1942) (“[T]he writ of habeas corpus should not do service for an appeal.”).
DISCUSSION
Houk was indicted in the Northern District of Alabama on charges of attempted kidnapping
and interstate violation of a protection order. See Indictment, United States v. Houk, No. 24-CR-00281-
MHH (N.D. Ala. July 31, 2024), ECF No. 1. On March 25, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Nicholas A.
Danella granted the Government’s request that Houk undergo a competency evaluation under 18
U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4242 and committed Houk to the custody of the Attorney General. See Order
Granting Government’s Motion for Mental Health Evaluation, United States v. Houk, No. 24-CR-
00281-MHH (N.D. Ala. Mar. 25, 2025), ECF No. 24. After the Bureau of Prisons submitted two
sealed psychiatric reports, Houk’s lawyer and the Government “agree[d] to submit the issue of Mr.
Houk’s competency for determination” by the court “[i]n lieu of an evidentiary hearing pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 4241(c)[.]” Joint Stipulations Regarding Competency, United States v. Houk, No. 24-CR-
00281-MHH (N.D. Ala. July 11, 2025), ECF No. 32 ¶ 4. Magistrate Judge Danella found that Houk
Case 1:25-cv-25823-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
was “mentally incompetent” “by a preponderance of the evidence” and committed him “to the
custody 	of 	the 	Attorney 	General 	for 	competency 	restoration 	treatment 	and 	examination.”
Commitment Order, United States v. Houk, No. 24-CR-00281-MHH (N.D. Ala. July 15, 2025), ECF
No. 33 at 2–3. On September 8, 2025, Houk filed a pro se notice of appeal of Magistrate Judge Danella’s
Commitment Order. See Notice of Appeal, United States v. Houk, No. 24-CR-00281-MHH (N.D. Ala.
Sept. 8, 2025), ECF No. 41. That appeal remains pending. See generally Docket, United States v. Houk,
No. 25-13089 (11th Cir. Sept. 8, 2025).
Houk, who was subsequently transferred to the Federal Detention Center in Miami, Florida,
now asks us to “set aside” Magistrate Judge Danella’s Commitment Order. Petition at 7. We won’t be
doing that. Habeas corpus is an inappropriate vehicle to resolve an issue that can (and should) be
resolved in a defendant’s pending criminal case. See Pyatt v. United States, 2024 WL 3345781, at *2 (S.D.
Fla. June 4, 2024) (Altman, J.) (“[T]he Supreme Court has held—for over one-hundred years—that a
trial judge cannot grant a writ of habeas corpus before trial if a criminal defendant has the opportunity
to challenge the legality of his prosecution in his criminal case.”). And Houk’s appeal of his
Commitment Order is still unresolved, so there’s nothing we can do here—even if his claims are
meritorious. See Whitney v. Dick, 202 U.S. 132, 136 (1906) (“The writ of habeas corpus is not the
equivalent of an appeal or writ of error.”); Adams, 317 U.S. at 274 (“Of course, the writ of habeas
corpus should not do service for an appeal.”); United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165 (1982) (same).
We therefore DISMISS the Petition as premature. See, e.g., Garcon v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff’s Off., 291
F. App’x 225, 226 (11th Cir. 2008) (“While a pre-trial detainee, Garcon filed the instant habeas petition
arguing . . . his indictment was invalid . . . . The claim[ ] Garcon sought to raise [is] properly brought
during his criminal case and subsequent direct appeal, should he choose to file one. Therefore, the
instant petition was premature and was due to be dismissed.”); see also Reese v. Warden Philadelphia FDC,
904 F.3d 244, 246 (3d Cir. 2018) (“Courts have consistently refused to exercise their habeas authority
Case 1:25-cv-25823-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
in cases where federal prisoners have sought relief before standing trial. Instead, Courts have long
stressed that defendants should pursue the remedies available within the criminal action.”).
We therefore ORDER AND ADJUDGE that Philip Houk’s Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. All pending
motions are DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on December 17, 2025.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Philip Houk, pro se
Case 1:25-cv-25823-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/17/2025 Page 4 of 4