In Re Lewis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION IN RE: Cause No. CV 25-44-GF-DWM SK YCHIEF CHIEFSTICK LEWIS ORDER Petitioner Skychief Chiefstick Lewis (“Lewis”), a federal pretrial detainee, filed a document entitled “Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. 1.) Asa pretrial detainee, the Court presumes Lewis intends to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This statute “provides generally for the granting of writs of habeas corpus by federal courts, implementing ‘the general grant of habeas authority provided by the Constitution.’” Frantz v. Hazey, 533 F. 3d 724, 735 (9" Cir. 2008 (en banc) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F. 3d 1002, 1006 (9" Cir. 2004). Section 2241 provides the authority for granting habeas relief to a person who is not in custody pursuant to a judgment but, rather, who is in custody for some other reason, such a pretrial detention or awaiting extradition. White, 370 F. 3d at 1006. While Lewis is proceeding pro se in this matter, he is represented by Federal Defender Clark Mathews in his companion criminal case. In January of this year an indictment was handed down charging Lewis with Strangulation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) & 113(a)(8). See, US'v. Lewis, CauNsoeC. V -25-24-IGnFd-iBcMM(tm,fie lJneatd1n 6.2, 0 2T5h)am.ta ttiesr curresncthleydfo uralj eutdrr yoi nJa uln 2e42 ,0 2be5fo,r Ceh iJuedfgM eo rriins GreFaaltl UsSv. L.e wiCsV,- 25-24-OGrF(.-DM B.oMM n,Mt ar.c 2h6 2,0 25). Lewihsa'bsfie laisin dsgi ffitcofou llltoH we. sreeelkfresoa msc eu stody anads tkhsha i tcso nvibcets ieaotisn d (eD.o 1ca .5t .A)s a p rieatdlrea tinee, theriens oj udgom fecnotnv ifoc rLteiwio tsonc h allIeatnl gasepo.p etarhtsaeh t forLme whiasfis l weadsu tilpeirvzieodbu yNs elvyap drai ssoeneekrriesnl gi ef undaet rh etohrtayehtfe delcr oaulraktcsj urisodvitecohrts aierroe ns tiennd d Iian CounSteerg yne.e ra(lDlo1yc.,.) Bu atc rimidneafeln dcaannnutos atep eittifoownrr oifht a bceoarstp ou s challteehdn igtserc iocutrto 'rsd oerarss esr dte fenisanep se ndfeidnegcr railm inal prosecSeuetJo,in o evnPs..e rki2n4sU5,. 3S9.30 9,(11 9 18)w(e"slIeltt tthilaset d itnh aeb seonfec xeecp ticoinraclu misnct raniicnmecaasls t ehsre e gjuuldalir c ia procesdhuobrueeflo dl loawnehdda ,b ceoarpsus sh onuolbetdg rantienad d vea nc ofat iralIn.th "ei) n smtaatnLttee wrhi,a s sa deqanudae tffee cmteiavtneos vindhiicrsai tg iehnt te hts rcioaulAr bts.e nt c"isrpceucmistatahla ct nocuelsd" jus"tadi efyp afrrotmtuh rere e gcuoluarro sjfeu dipcoricaeldi ucnrr ei"m inal proceefeddiendrgeaistln,a em easny o stuppthloansptoer c eedwiinatgnhs inetrvepneitnifogtr cioolnl haatebearrsea lulin ed§fe2 2 r4 1Rg.ig iv.nU snt ied Satets 1,9U9. 5S4.575,(11 90s5e)ea; l sEodw,a rvd.Vs a nn5o9yU3,. 2S2.5,289 (2021). Given the ongoing nature of his criminal proceedings, this Court declines to interfere with another judge’s case. See, Mullis, v. U.S. Bankr. Ct. for Dist. Of Nevada, 828 F. 2d 1385, 1393 (9" Cir. 1987). Moreover, Lewis has presented no extraordinary circumstances to justify intervention in an ongoing criminal proceeding. Accordingly, Lewis’s challenges to his active federal criminal prosecution must be dismissed. Lewis must pursue any jurisdictional claims in his pending criminal case before Judge Morris. Pursuant to the Federal Rules Governing Habeas Cases, this Court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The standard is satisfied if “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of [the] constitutional claims” or “conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). For the reasons set forth herein, Lewis has not made a substantial showing of _ the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, reasonable jurists would find no reason to encourage additional proceedings at this time. A certificate of appealability is denied. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Lewis’s Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED. 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal. 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. . pat DATED this JP day of June, 2025. MWA Donald W. Molloy, District Judge United States District Court