King v. Ogle et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHAN LAMONT KING, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM OGLE, et al.,
Respondents.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-01252
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Nathan Lamont King, Jr., currently pending trial on criminal
charges in York County, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 on July 10, 2025. (Doc. 1). He claims that the county
court has failed to show probable cause for his detention, which he asserts violates
his due process rights. (Id.). For the reasons set forth below, after conducting a
preliminary screening review of the Petition, it will be recommended that it be
dismissed. See R. GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 4, 1(b).1
1 This rule provides “[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.” These rules
are applicable to petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the discretion of the court. Id.
at R. 1(b).
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 15

2
I. 	Background
Petitioner Nathan Lamont King, Jr. filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus on July 10, 2025. (Doc. 1). He subsequently filed a motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 4); however, due to a clerical error
misclassifying King’s case as a civil rights case, a new motion for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis was needed. King complied, and filed the Motion on November
3, 2025. (Doc. 9). King’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was
conditionally granted for purposes of conducting a screening review by Order filed
contemporaneously with this Report and Recommendation.
Petitioner is pending trial in York County on criminal charges including
Flight to Avoid Apprehension or Trial and Resisting Law Enforcement. 2 He
asserts that he was arrested by the York City Police Department on an arrest
warrant for a probation violation out of Dauphin County. (Doc. 1, p. 3–4).3 While
2 King referenced the docket number of the pending case as CP-67-CR-0005672-
2024. Review of the public docket reveals the charges and status of that case.
3 King previously attempted to challenge the York County prosecution that is the
subject of this habeas petition by way of a section 1983 claim, docketed to 1:24-cv-
02058-JFS. There, in addition to other claims not relevant here, Petitioner
complained of his York County arrest for similar reasons raised here. On April 4,
2025, Chief Magistrate Judge Daryl Bloom issued a Report and Recommendation
wherein he recommended King’s challenge to his pending York County
prosecution – the subject of this action – be dismissed without prejudice based on
the Younger abstention. The recommendation was adopted by United States
District Court Judge Joseph Saporito, and King’s claims were dismissed by Order
dated April 7, 2025.
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 15

3
not explicitly stated in the Petition, it appears that his York County charges arose
during his interaction and subsequent arrest with York City law enforcement. King
states that he is currently being held at the York County Prison and is subject to a
detainer by Dauphin County. (Id. at 1). While Petitioner’s reasoning is difficult to
follow, he seems to challenge the validity of his probation in Dauphin County
because, according to Petitioner, a valid probation agreement does not exist. He
maintains that “York [C]ounty had no authority, jurisdiction or probable cause to
issue any charges considering they could not possibly establish probable cause.”
(Id. at 4). Citing the Uniform Commercial Code, Petitioner describes contractual
obligations that arise between the government and citizens, and states that
“[s]ecurities and contracts go hand and [sic] hand and is one of if not the most
pivotal point of our law system today.” (Id.). He further explains: “The petitioner
continuously expressed that he understands that some implied contractual
obligation exists and the petitioner wishes to rescind any and all implied contracts
not expressed because they are not enforceable by law under the statues [sic] of
frauds, have violated my constitutional right to due process and the supreme court
has held that a contract which violates a statute is illegal and will not be enforced.”
(Id. at 5).
The public docket indicates that King currently has court-appointed counsel
and his criminal case is actively being litigated: a Motion to Dismiss was filed on
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 15

4
September 23, 2025, which was subsequently denied by the trial court, and a Rule
600 Motion to Dismiss was filed on November 13, 2025, which is currently set for
hearing on January 23, 2026. His case remains on the trial list, and is currently in
“awaiting trial” status. (See docket CP-67-CR-0005672-2024).
II. 	Discussion
A prisoner who wishes to challenge “the fact or length of his confinement”
may do so through a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411
U.S. 475, 494, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 1838, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). Petitioner has not
submitted a standard habeas petition provided by the court; instead, he styles his
Petition as brought under both 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 2254. “When an individual is
in state custody for reasons other than a judgment of a state court, such as in
pretrial detention, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is properly brought
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Young v. Walton, No. CV 20-660, 2020 WL
2813318, at *2 (W.D. Pa. May 8, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No.
2:20-CV-00660-MJH, 2020 WL 2793092 (W.D. Pa. May 29, 2020) (citing Moore
v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 441–43 (3d Cir. 1975)); Glazewski v. United States, No.
CV 16-3052 (RBK), 2017 WL 2899686, at *1 (D.N.J. July 6, 2017) (“this Court
will re-characterize his § 2254 habeas petition as a habeas petition filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 because Mr. Glazewski is a state pretrial detainee as opposed to a
state prisoner.”). “[S]ection 2241 authorizes a federal court to issue a writ of
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 15

5
habeas corpus to any pretrial detainee who ‘is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.’” Duran v. Thomas, 393 F.
App’x 3, 4 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at 441–42 & n.5).
“Nevertheless, that jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly in order to prevent in
the ordinary circumstance ‘pre-trial habeas interference by federal courts in the
normal functioning of state criminal processes.’” Id. (quoting Moore, 515 F.2d at
445–46). See also Brown v. PA, No. CV 22-158, 2022 WL 2919072, at *2 (W.D.
Pa. Mar. 7, 2022), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 22-158, 2022 WL
2917556 (W.D. Pa. July 25, 2022).
A. Preliminary Screening
“Federal district courts are required under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, which is applicable to § 2241
petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b), to screen and summarily dismiss a habeas petition
prior to the answer when the petition ‘appears legally insufficient on its face.’”
Khan v. Aviles, No. CV 23-698 (MCA), 2024 WL 3276773, at *1 (D.N.J. June 10,
2024) (quoting McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994)). If the petition does
not allege any grounds which would entitle the petitioner to relief, the habeas
petition may be dismissed. United States v. Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir.
2000). For the reasons explained below, it is recommended that the Petition be
dismissed without prejudice.
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 5 of 15

6
B. Exhaustion Requirement
Generally, petitioners are statutorily required to exhaust their state remedies
prior to petitioning for habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A) (“An
application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the Judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that the
applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the court of the State”). To
exhaust state remedies, “a petitioner must show that he has fairly presented his
claim to the state courts. To be fairly presented to the state courts both the legal
theory and the facts supporting the claim must have been presented to the state
courts.” Wormuth v. Donatie, No. 1:10-CV-01818, 2010 WL 5092638, at *1 (M.D.
Pa. Sept. 8, 2010), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:10-CV-01818, 2010
WL 5092718 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 7, 2010) (internal citation omitted).
A review of the public docket from Petitioner’s county court case shows that
King filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on March 25, 2025. (See CP-67-
CR-0005672-2024). The presiding county court judge, Joseph C. Adams,
addressed that Petition by order on March 31, 2025 with a “Concise Statement
Order.”4 (Id.). Petitioner then filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus with the Superior
4 While the York County Court of Common Pleas docket is available for public
review, the contents of the individual filings are not. Therefore, our review is
limited to the date and title of each filing.
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 6 of 15

7
Court of Pennsylvania on April 2, 2025. (See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v.
Nathan King Appellant, 329 MDA 2025).5 That request was denied by Order dated
April 4, 2025. (Id.).
In the Petition, King fails to make any mention of his prior appeals or even
acknowledge his duty to exhaust before bringing a habeas petition in federal court.
A “habeas petitioner bears the burden of proving all facts entitling him to a
discharge from custody as well as demonstrating that he has met all procedural
requisites entitling him to relief.” Paladino v. King, No. CIV. A. 07-370, 2008 WL
1820666, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2008) (citing Brown v. Cuyler, 669 F.2d 155,
157 (3d Cir. 1982)). Petitioner neither includes nor discusses the content of the
appeals he filed in the state courts or the grounds for each courts’ denial of his
petitions. He has therefore not met his burden of demonstrating that he satisfied the
procedural prerequires that must be met prior to filing a habeas petition in federal
court.
Even if King had “fairly presented . . . both the legal theory and the facts
supporting the claim” for his two filed petitions for writs of habeas corpus, he still
has not fully exhausted his state court remedies. Miles v. Keen, No. 3:12-CV-
5 Again, only the Superior Court of Pennsylvania’s appellate docket is available for
public review; therefore, our consideration is limited to the date and title of each
filing.
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 7 of 15

8
01022, 2012 WL 6840561, at *1 (M.D. Pa. July 5, 2012), report and
recommendation adopted, No. 3:12-CV-01022, 2013 WL 140713 (M.D. Pa. Jan.
11, 2013).
While “it is only in the post-trial setting that exhaustion has been mandated
by statute” in § 2254(b), exhaustion in the pre-trial setting has been developed
through caselaw. Moore v, 515 F.2d at 442.
[S]tate prisoners seeking relief under Section 2254 must also satisfy specific,
and precise, procedural standards. Among these procedural prerequisites is a
requirement that the petitioner “has exhausted the remedies available in the
courts of the State” before seeking relief in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §
2254(b). Section 2254’s exhaustion requirement calls for total exhaustion of
all available state remedies. Thus, a habeas petitioner “shall not be deemed
to have exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State, within
the meaning of this section, if he has the right under the law of the State to
raise, by any available procedure, the question presented.” 28 U.S.C. §
2254(c). In instances where a state prisoner has failed to exhaust the legal
remedies available to him in the state courts, federal courts typically will
refuse to entertain a petition for habeas corpus. See Whitney v. Horn, 280
F.3d. 240, 250 (3d Cir. 2002).
Fleming v. Hileman, No. 1:21-CV-1389, 2021 WL 9409244, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Nov.
8, 2021), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:21-CV-1389, 2022 WL
4111860 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 8, 2022).
In certain situations, presenting an appeal at the county court and Superior
court level is sufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. In an Order entitled
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 8 of 15

9
“Exhaustion of State Remedies in Criminal and Post-Conviction Relief Cases; No.
218,” the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared:
[I]n all appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief matters, a
litigant shall not be required to petition for rehearing or allowance of appeal
following an adverse decision by the Superior Court in order to be deemed
to have exhausted all available state remedies respecting a claim of error.
When a claim has been presented to the Superior Court, or to the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, and relief has been denied in a final order, the litigant
shall be deemed to have exhausted all available state remedies for purposes
of federal habeas corpus relief. This Order shall be effective immediately.
30 Pa. Bull. 2582 (May 9, 2000). However, as the plain language indicates, Order
No. 218 only applies to appeals from criminal convictions or post-conviction relief
matters, and therefore is inapplicable to a pretrial habeas petitioner. Mitchell v.
Harry, No. 1:13-CV-00120, 2013 WL 6283691, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 3, 2013).
“Where, as here, a petitioner challenges a pretrial issue in an underlying criminal
case and has not yet been convicted and sentenced, he must exhaust his state court
remedies through all stages of appeal in the state court system, including the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court.” Diaz v. Briggs, No. 1:21-CV-1145, 2021 WL
4439458, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 28, 2021). See also Harper v. Farrell, No. CIV.A.
13-3209, 2014 WL 2586982, at *7 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2014) (“[A]ny claim upon
which [petitioner] seeks federal relief is unexhausted in that he did not seek
Pennsylvania Supreme Court review of the Superior Court’s order. This step is
required for a challenge to continued pre-trial confinement to be considered
exhausted.”).
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 9 of 15

10
While Petitioner has not asserted that he has exhausted his state court
remedies, a review of the public docket indicates that he has failed to do so. A
federal court should not exercise its habeas powers if state remedies have not been
exhausted unless extraordinary circumstance are present. Id. at 443; Reese v.
Warden Philadelphia FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 246 n.2 (3d Cir. 2018) (“We have ruled
that a state prisoner may pursue a pretrial § 2241 petition without exhausting state
remedies in ‘extraordinary circumstances,’ which might exist when there is a
showing of ‘delay, harassment, bad faith or other intentional activity’ on the part of
the state.”). King has not alleged that his circumstance is so unique that it should
be entitled to “pre-trial, pre-exhaustion habeas corpus relief,” Duran v. Thomas,
393 F. App’x 3, 5 (3d Cir. 2010), and the Court does not see any reason from the
face of the Petition why King’s petition would be considered an extraordinary
circumstance. It is therefore recommended that the writ of habeas corpus be
dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
C. Younger Abstention
An additional comity-related issue arises from doctrine of Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). Under the Younger
Doctrine, “[w]hen there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal
courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v.
Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013).
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 10 of 15

11
Specifically, the federal court may not exercise jurisdiction if: “(1) there are
ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings
implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal claims.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670
(3d Cir. 2010). There are certain exceptions to the Younger abstention, however,
requiring the plaintiff to establish that “(1) the state proceedings are being
undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other
extraordinary circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant to a flagrantly
unconstitutional statute, such that deference to the state proceeding will present a
significant and immediate potential for irreparable harm to the federal interests
asserted.” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989).
Here, the conditions needed for Younger abstention to apply are met. Based
on King’s Petition and the state court docket, “[i]t is evident . . . that [Petitioner] is
engaged in ongoing criminal proceedings which implicate important state interests
and he is actively engaged in defense of those proceedings.” Smith v. Franklin
Cnty. Ct. of Common Pleas, No. 1:21-CV-1222, 2022 WL 392451, at *2 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 10, 2022). Moreover, none of the exceptions to Younger abstention are
applicable here. There is no evidence that the state is proceeding in bad faith or
that Petitioner would suffer any irreparable harm were the prosecution tried
completion. Therefore, it is appropriate to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 11 of 15

12
the Petition and dismissing it without prejudice, out of respect for the state court’s
judicial process. Id.
The case of Smith v. Franklin County Court of Common Pleas presents a
similar scenario as seen in this matter. No. 1:21-CV-1222, 2022 WL 392451 (M.D.
Pa. Jan. 10, 2022). In Smith, the petitioner was facing state charges in the Franklin
County Court of Common Pleas and filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
federal court to challenge both his confinement and the prosecution against him.
Judge Wilson of this Court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the
conditions set forth in Younger were satisfied such that the federal court should not
exercise jurisdiction over his pending criminal case. She noted, “it is well
established that when a petitioner seeks to ‘challenge the charges against him,’ he
should ‘do so through pretrial motions in his criminal case, not via a pretrial §
2241 petition.’” Id. at *2 (quoting Reese v. Warden Phila. FDC, 904 F.3d 244, 247
(3d Cir. 2018)).
As Judge Bloom stated in recommending that King’s prior challenge to his
ongoing criminal prosecution in York County be dismissed:
[T]he requirements for Younger abstention—ongoing state proceedings that
implicate important state interests and give the plaintiff an adequate
opportunity to raise his claims—are met here. Given the paramount
importance to the state of the enforcement and resolution of criminal law
enforcement, we believe that we should exercise our discretion to abstain
from these claims involving King’s ongoing state criminal matters.
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 12 of 15

13
King v. Ogle, No. 1:24-CV-2058, 2025 WL 1338086, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 4,
2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:24-CV-2058, 2025 WL
1336317 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2025)
According, it is respectfully recommended that this premature Petition be
dismissed without prejudice.
Date: January 14, 2026 	/s/ Leo A. Latella
Leo A. Latella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 13 of 15

14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NATHAN LAMONT KING, JR.,
Petitioner,
v.
ADAM OGLE, ET AL.,
Respondent.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-01252
(Magistrate Judge Latella)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the
forgoing Report and Recommendation dated January 14, 2026.
Any party may obtain review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant
to Local Rule 72.3, which provides:
Any 	party 	may 	object 	to 	a 	magistrate 	judge's 	proposed 	findings,
recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28
U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a
prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and
serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall
specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations
or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The
briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall
make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may
accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, need conduct a new
hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may
consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her
own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 14 of 15

15
further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
Dated: January 14, 2026 	/s/ Leo A. Latella
Leo A. Latella
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-01252-JFS Document 12 Filed 01/14/26 Page 15 of 15