superceded by statute on other 26 grounds
How later courts described this case
- superceded by statute on other 26 grounds
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Case No. SA CV 19-2034 JFW (MRW)
13 JOHN BUTLER,
14 Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
15 v.
16 SHERIFF BARNES,
17 Respondent.
18
19
The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas corpus action
20
based on the Younger abstention doctrine.
21
* * *
22
1. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in an Orange County jail.
23
Apparently due to issues involving Petitioner’s mental competency and his
24
dissatisfaction with his attorneys (Docket # 10 at 3-4), Petitioner has been
25
in custody for several years.
26
2. Petitioner filed a petition in this Court seeking habeas corpus
27
review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket # 1 at 1.) The petition does not list
28
1 any recognizable federal constitutional challenges to a criminal conviction.
2 Rather, the petition lists various jail-based grievances, including limited
3 contact with his attorneys and medical care issues. (Id. at 5-7.) Petitioner
4 acknowledges that he has not presented these claims to the state supreme
5 court for consideration. (Id.)
6 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner preliminarily reviewed the petition.
7 Judge Wilner directed Petitioner to explain why this federal court could
8 properly hear any of his claims at this stage of his ongoing local criminal
9 case. (Docket # 3, 6.) Petitioner submitted various letters and notices in
10 response to the screening order. (Docket # 5, 9, 10, 11.) However, none
11 directly addressed the issues raised in the screening order.
12 * * *
13 4. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person
14 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas
15 action without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243;
16 see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
17 District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly
18 not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit
19 proposed order for summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly
20 appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to
21 relief”).1
22 5. Petitioner is not entitled to pursue habeas relief under
23 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as he requests. That statute requires a prisoner to
24 establish that s/he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
25 court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A pretrial detainee like Petitioner is not in
26
1 Petitioner’s objection to the magistrate judge’s involvement in the
27 case is overruled. (Docket # 11.) The assigned district judge expressly referred
the matter to the magistrate judge for preliminary proceedings. (Docket # 2.)
28 This final dismissal order is authorized by the district judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636.
1 custody due to a conviction or judgment. Habeas relief under Section 2254
2 is not available.
3 6. The Court could potentially exercise jurisdiction under
4 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider a habeas petition brought by a pre-trial
5 detainee such as Petitioner. However, federal courts generally abstain
6 from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings until the
7 conviction becomes final after the conclusion of appellate proceedings.
8 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
9 Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (same).
10 7. Younger abstention “is appropriate if (1) there are ongoing
11 state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state
12 interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to
13 raise federal questions.” Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218,
14 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Sheehee v. Baca, 588 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014)
15 (same). To that end, federal courts recognize that “the States’ interest in
16 administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference
17 is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a
18 court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36,
19 49 (1986).
20 8. There are few exceptions to the Younger rule. A prisoner may
21 seek pre-conviction habeas relief in federal court by demonstrating
22 “extraordinary circumstances” such as “cases of proven harassment or
23 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of
24 obtaining a valid conviction.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir.
25 2012). Another valid exception is when a prisoner raises a “colorable claim
26 of double jeopardy.” Stanley v. Baca, 555 F. App’x 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014)
27 (quoting Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)).
28
1 9. Petitioner fails to meet these vigorous standards. Petitioner
2 has not been tried or convicted yet, and has not convincingly established
3 that he lacks the opportunity to raise his constitutional claims in his
4 ongoing state criminal case. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 224. Further, his
5 complaints are too ill-formed to constitute proven claims of bad faith,
6 extraordinary circumstances by local officials, or impending double
7 jeopardy violations that warrant federal habeas intervention. Brown, 676
8 F.3d at 901; Stanley, 555 F. App’x at 708.
9 10. Accordingly, Younger abstention “requires dismissal of a
10 habeas petition that prematurely” raises allegations of constitutional
11 injury.2 Brown, 676 F.3d at 903; Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 In liberally reading Petitioner’s pro se filing, the Court could
24 potentially construe Petitioner’s access-to-courts claim as a civil rights cause of
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Court has discretion to convert a
25 habeas petition into a civil rights complaint, it declines to do so here. See
Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (superceded by statute on other
26
grounds). The petition is too vague in identifying any culpable tortfeasor, and
27 does not adequately set forth all elements of such a claim. Moreover, Petitioner
would be liable for a considerably higher filing fee should the Court automatically
28 convert the petition to a civil complaint.
i Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
a IT IS SO ORDERED.
3
4
5 | Dated: January 14, 2020 GEE
6 HOW. JOHN F. WALTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
8 Presented by:
9
10 Lf [
Vi.
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
12 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28