Summers v. State of North Carolina

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:26-cv-00103-MR
SHELDON SUMMERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) MEMORANDUM OF
) DECISION AND ORDER
)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, )
)
Respondent. )
___________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on initial review of Petitioner’s Pro
Se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 4] and
Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 5].
I. BACKGROUND
On April 13, 2026, Pro Se Petitioner Sheldon Summers (“Petitioner”)
filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. [Doc.
1]. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee currently held at the Iredell County
Detention Center (“Jail”) in Statesville, North Carolina. [Doc. 4 at 1]. After
he was ordered to correct deficiencies in his original petition, Petitioner filed
the instant petition. [Docs. 3, 4]. Thereafter, Chief United States District
Judge Richard E. Myers, II, transferred the matter here where venue is
Case 5:26-cv-00103-MR Document 9 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 5

2
proper. [Doc. 7].
Petitioner was arrested on August 3, 2022, on two counts of first-
degree murder, two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, and one
count of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or inflict serious
injury, all committed on September 25, 1992. [Doc. 4 at 2; Doc. 4-1 at 3].
He claims that he has been detained since his arrest and denied a speedy
trial despite having Stage 4, metastatic prostate cancer and receiving no
treatment at the Jail. [Id. at 6]. Petitioner also complains about the 30 year-
delay in his indictment, the conduct of proceedings in his criminal case
without his presence, and his failed attempts to be brought to court on his
self-filed writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. [Id. at 6-7; see Doc. 4-
1 at 1-2]. Petitioner claims to have asserted an appeal to the Jail and to this
Court. [Id. at 2-3].
Petitioner challenges his current detention and seeks dismissal of his
state criminal charges.1 [Id. at 7]. He claims violation of his rights under the
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, as
well as gross negligence and “wanton conduct.” [Id. at 2].
1 According to the publicly available docket in Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings, his
cases, 22CR000743-480, 22CR000744-480, 22CR000745-480, 22CR000746-480, and
22CR000747-480, are set for a disposition hearing on May 18, 2026. [See portal-
nc.tylertech.cloud/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29 (last visited 5/6/2026)].
Case 5:26-cv-00103-MR Document 9 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 5

3
II. IN FORMA PAUPERIS MOTION
Petitioner’s affidavit shows that he has received no income during the
past twelve months. [Doc. 5 at 1]. Petitioner reports having no cash, no
money in any bank account, no other assets, and that no one relies on him
for support. [Id. at 2]. The Court is satisfied that Petitioner is without
sufficient funds to pay the filing fee in this matter. The Court, therefore, will
grant Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited purpose
of the Court’s initial review.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings provides that
courts are to promptly examine habeas petitions to determine whether the
petitioner is entitled to any relief on the claims set forth therein. After
examining the record in this matter, the Court finds that the habeas petition
can be resolved without an evidentiary hearing based on the record and
governing case law. See Raines v. United States, 423 F.2d 526, 529 (4th
Cir. 1970).
IV. DISCUSSION
A federal habeas petitioner who is “in custody pursuant to the judgment
of a State court,” may seek relief pursuant to Title 28, Section 2254(a). A
pretrial detainee, however, is not “in custody” pursuant to a state court
Case 5:26-cv-00103-MR Document 9 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 5

4
judgment. Relief under § 2254, therefore is not available. See Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220 (5th Cir. 1987). A pretrial detainee’s exclusive
federal remedy for alleged unconstitutional confinement is to file a petition
for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), but only after fully
exhausting the available state remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3);
Thomas v. Crosby, 371 F.3d 782, 786 (11th Cir. 2004). Although § 2241
contains no express reference to exhaustion of state remedies, as does §
2254, exhaustion is required prior to filing a § 2241 petition. See e.g., Braden
v. 30th Jud. Cir., 410 U.S. 484, 490-91 (1973); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d
437, 442-43 (3d Cir. 1975). To satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a habeas
petitioner must present his claims to the state courts such that the courts
have the fair “opportunity to apply controlling legal principles to the facts
bearing upon [his] constitutional claim.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270,
275-77 (1971); see O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (in order
to properly exhaust state remedies, “state prisoners must give the state
courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking
one complete round of the State’s established appellate review process”).
Here, Petitioner makes no proper claim of having engaged one
complete round of North Carolina’s established appellate review process. As
such, Petitioner failed to exhaust his state remedies before filing this action.
Case 5:26-cv-00103-MR Document 9 Filed 05/06/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Because Petitioner failed to exhaust his state court remedies, this petition is
not properly before the Court. The Court will, therefore, will dismiss
Petitioner’s petition without prejudice.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Petitioner’s § 2241 petition is denied
and dismissed without prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus under § 2241 [Doc. 4] is DENIED and DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 5] is GRANTED in accordance with the
terms of this Order.
The Clerk is directed to terminate this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 6, 2026
Case 5:26-cv-00103-MR Document 9 Filed 05/06/26 Page 5 of 5