# Smith v. District Attorney's Office of San Francisco

> District Court, N.D. California · April 2, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063594

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, N.D. California
- **Decided:** April 2, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063594

## Opinion text

1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH, #17-00662784, Case No. 20-cv-01474-CRB (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS
9 v. CORPUS

10 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, (ECF No. 4)
11 Respondent.

12 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee facing state criminal charges in San Francisco County
13 Superior Court, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the criminal
14 proceedings against him primarily on the grounds that his speedy trial rights are being violated by
15 a lengthy delay in prosecution. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28
16 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 4) which, good cause shown, is granted.
Petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a
17
petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But principles of comity and
18
federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain any such pre-sentence habeas challenge
19
unless petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2)
20 “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th
21 Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in
22 bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other special circumstances
where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state
23
prosecutions appropriate. Id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). Petitioner
24
makes no such showing of “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention. See id. at 84;
25
see also Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal court must abstain from
26 entertaining pre-sentence habeas petition raising speedy trial claim absent special circumstances).
27 The instant pre-sentence habeas petition accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice to
1 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
3 Dated: April 2, 2020
4 A AO
CHARLES R. BREYER
5 United States District Judge
6
7
8
9
10
11

13

14

15

Q 16
&
= 17

Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH,
5 Case No. 3:20-cv-01474-CRB
Plaintiff,
6
5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF
8 || SAN FRANCISCO,
9 Defendant.
10 . . .
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
11
District Court, Northern District of California.

That on April 2, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copyCies) of the attached, by placing
14
said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
15
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(es) into an inter-office delivery

16
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.
= 17

Z 18 Lewis Francis Smith ID: #17662784
San Francisco County Jail #5
19 1 Moreland Drive
San Bruno, CA 94066
20
21
2 Dated: April 2, 2020
Susan Y. Soong
23 Clerk, United States District Court
24
25 By. Tork tra¢
Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the
26 Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10063594. Public record. Not legal advice.