Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

O'Rourke v. Parker

United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma

October 23, 2019

BRYAN CHRISTOPHER O'ROURKE, Petitioner,
v.
DAVID PARKER, Administrator, David L. Moss Criminal Justice Center, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERENCE C. KERN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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 as moot.

         I. Background

         Petitioner 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, [1] 18 U.S.C. § 3142, and the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail Clause.
Count Three: The former judge used bail as a “tool of punishment” in violation of due process and Brill.
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 invalid.
Count Eight: The current conditions of [Petitioner's] “order of release” is excessive, punitive, and unconstitutional.

Dkt. 5, at 5, 51, 57, 77, 81, 83, 89, 90.

         In his 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.

         On 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.

         Two 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” ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.