explaining that Supreme Court precedent establishes that “at 7 least in the absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ federal courts must refuse to 8 intervene in state criminal proceedings to suppress the use of evidence claimed to have 9 been obtained through unlawful means”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that Supreme Court precedent establishes that “at 7 least in the absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ federal courts must refuse to 8 intervene in state criminal proceedings to suppress the use of evidence claimed to have 9 been obtained through unlawful means”
- concluding that a request 11 to enjoin enforcement of a criminal discovery statute and to suppress evidence obtained 12 under that statute could not be entertained
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Case No.: 3:20-cv-0938-LAB-LL
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE
14 WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff, et al.,
15 Respondents.
16
17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at San Diego County Jail, proceeding pro se, has filed
18 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
19 FAILURE TO SATISFY THE FILING FEE REQUIREMENT
20 Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in
21 forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the
22 $5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the
23 case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
24 BASIS FOR PETITION
25 Further, because Petitioner alleges in his current petition that he is in custody in the
26 San Diego County Jail awaiting trial, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and not 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the
27 proper vehicle to challenge his detention. While Petitioner alleges he is being held in
28
1 custody in violation of the United States Constitution, he is not currently in custody
2 pursuant to a judgment of a state court. As the Ninth Circuit has stated:
3 Section 2254 is properly understood as “in effect implement[ing] the
general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241 as long as the
4
person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in
5 state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody
awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a
6
conviction.” [citations omitted.]
7
8 White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Walker v. O’Brien, 216
9 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, if Petitioner seeks to
10 challenge the constitutionality of his pre-trial detention, he must file a petition for writ of
11 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
12 ABSTENSION
13 In addition, the Court notes that, to the extent Petitioner challenges ongoing state
14 criminal proceedings, the Court must generally abstain from hearing such challenges.
15 Petitioner argues his defense counsel has been ineffective by, among other things, failing
16 to ask proper questions during his preliminary hearing. (See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) He
17 also suggests the judge overseeing the criminal proceedings in his case is biased. (See
18 id.)
19 “Only a limited number of pre-trial challenges have been found cognizable under
20 Section 2241. Generally, pre-trial habeas challenges have been allowed only when a state
21 defendant contends he is being deprived of his right to a speedy trial or the Double
22 Jeopardy Clause will be violated if he is tried.” Fritz v. City of Los Angeles, 2012 WL
23 5197971, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2012) (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of
24 Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 488-93 (1973)); McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir.
25 2003) (as amended). However, as the Supreme Court has explained, “federal habeas
26 corpus does not lie, absent ‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an
27 affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state
28 court.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
1 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from
2 intervening in pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.
3 See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention applies to both
4 attempts to preclude and/or stay criminal prosecutions and attempts to obtain more
5 limited or piecemeal intervention in state criminal actions. See, e.g., Kugler v. Helfant,
6 421 U.S. 117, 130 (1975) (explaining that Supreme Court precedent establishes that “at
7 least in the absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ federal courts must refuse to
8 intervene in state criminal proceedings to suppress the use of evidence claimed to have
9 been obtained through unlawful means”); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court of
10 Cal. for the Cty. of L.A., 23 F.3d 218, 223–26 (9th Cir. 1994) (concluding that a request
11 to enjoin enforcement of a criminal discovery statute and to suppress evidence obtained
12 under that statute could not be entertained).
13 Abstention principles generally require federal courts to abstain from exercising
14 jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises an affirmative defense to
15 a state prosecution unless (1) the state proceedings are being undertaken in bad faith or to
16 harass, where there is no “hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or (2) “in other
17 extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown v. Ahern,
18 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Middlesex Cty. Ethics
19 Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435-37 (1982). Irreparable injury alone,
20 however, is insufficient to warrant federal intervention unless the irreparable injury is
21 both great and immediate. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46.
22 In this case, abstention appears appropriate because all the Younger requirements
23 are met. As noted, Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner is in
24 pretrial custody on the criminal charges for which he is detained. Second the state’s task
25 of enforcing its laws against socially harmful conduct is “important and necessary,”
26 Younger, 401 U.S. at 51–52, and as such, the state proceedings implicate important state
27 interests. Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise his federal habeas claims
28 / / /
1 in his pending state proceedings. Lastly, there is nothing to indicate the circumstances of
2 Petitioner’s case fall within any recognized exception to the Younger doctrine.
3 FAILURE TO ALLEGE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM ON FEDERAL HABEAS
4 Finally, the Court notes that it appears to the Court that a Petition for Writ of
5 Habeas Corpus may not be the proper vehicle for all the claims Petitioner presents.
6 Petitioner lists various problems he claims he is facing in jail. In addition to allegations
7 related to his criminal proceedings, Petitioner claims also he has been “denied access to
8 the law library” and “denied photocopies” and “denied medical and mental healthcare
9 and treatment.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3–4.) These claims are not cognizable on habeas
10 because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See
11 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey,
12 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). “Section 2254 applies only to collateral attacks on state
13 court judgments.” McGuire v. Blubaum, 376 F. Supp. 284, 285 (D. Ariz. 1974).
14 In no way does Petitioner claim his state court conviction violates the Constitution
15 or laws or treaties of the United States. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases
16 provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face
17 of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in
18 the district court.” Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the petition that
19 Petitioner is not presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not alleged that
20 the state court violated his federal rights.
21 Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ
22 of habeas corpus; challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the
23 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500. When a state
24 prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the
25 relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier
26 release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at
27 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a state detainee who is
28 making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his detention, but not to the fact or
1 length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d
2 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). To the extent Petitioner challenges the conditions of his
3 detention, but not the fact or length of his custody,1 he has not stated cognizable habeas
4 claims.
5 CONCLUSION
6 For the reasons discussed above, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
7 For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank form
8 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a blank 42 U.S.C.
9 § 1983 complaint form.
10 IT IS SO ORDERED.
11 Dated: May 27, 2020
12 Larry Alan Burns, Chief Judge
United State District Court
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1 Petitioner currently has a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pending in this Court in
28