United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
TERENCE C. KERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the 28 U.S.C. § 2241
petition for writ of habeas corpus, the amended 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus, and several
related motions filed by Petitioner Bryan Christopher
O'Rourke. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
petitions for failure to exhaust state remedies. Respondent
also filed responses to Petitioner's related motions. For
the reasons discussed below, the Court finds Petitioner's
original and “amended” § 2241 petitions
should be dismissed and all pending motions should be denied
commenced this action on August 1, 2019, by filing a 28
U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.
1). At that time, Petitioner was incarcerated at the David L.
Moss Criminal Justice Center in Tulsa, Oklahoma, awaiting
trial in Tulsa County District Court No. CF-2017-4236. Dkt.
1, at 9, 16, 19. On August 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a brief
in support of his petition (Dkt. 5), identifying the
following eight claims for relief:
Count One: The former judge violated [Petitioner's] bail
bond agreement and Fourth Amendment protections from illegal
search and seizure.
Count Two: The former judge's decision to more than
quadruple [Petitioner's] bail violates Brill,
U.S.C. § 3142, and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive
Count Three: The former judge used bail as a “tool of
punishment” in violation of due process and
Count Four: The former judge violated [Petitioner's]
right to pretrial liberty by jailing him without procedural
due process and equal protection.
Count Five: The former judge violated [Petitioner's]
rights to equal protection and due process by denying him a
speedy bail determination hearing.
Count Six: The former judge violated [Petitioner's] Sixth
Amendment right to counsel.
Count Seven: Because the former judge violated
[Petitioner's] Oklahoma and federal rights under
Brill and both constitutions, her orders including
the excessive $900, 000 and other conditions of release are
Count Eight: The current conditions of [Petitioner's]
“order of release” is excessive, punitive, and
Dkt. 5, at 5, 51, 57, 77, 81, 83, 89, 90.
petition, Petitioner concedes that he did not exhaust
available state remedies as to these claims, but suggests his
attempts to do so were “futile” and that state
procedural rules barred him from seeking appellate review of
state district court rulings. Dkt. 1, at 13-16. Petitioner
also filed a brief in support of his request for preliminary
injunctive relief (Dkt. 6) on August 8, 2019.
August 14, 2019, based on Petitioner's allegations
regarding his attempts to exhaust his claims, the Court
directed Respondent to respond to the allegations in the
petition. Dkt. 7.
days later, on August 16, 2019, Petitioner filed an
“ammended [sic] petition for writ of habeas corpus and
brief in support for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241” ...