Davis v. Arpaio et al

Filing 13

ORDER - (1) Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9 ) is granted. (2) Petitioner's motion for expedited ruling is granted. (Doc. 11 .) (3) The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1 .) (4 ) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). (See document for further details). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 7/9/14. (LAD)

1
2

SC

WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Michael Dean Davis,

10

No. CV 14-0319-PHX-DLR (MEA)

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

ORDER

13

Respondents.

14
15

Petitioner Michael Dean Davis, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in

16

Phoenix, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28

17

U.S.C. § 2254 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 1, 9.) Petitioner

18

recently filed a motion for expedited ruling, which will be granted to the extent set forth

19

herein. For the reasons discussed herein, the Court will dismiss the Petition and this

20

action.

21

I.

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

22

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his inmate

23

trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed In

24

Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b).

25

II.

Petition

26

Petitioner is charged in Maricopa County Superior Court in two cases, case ##

27

CR2012-134932 and CR2012-139029, with resisting arrest and false reporting to law

28

1

enforcement with an offense date of July 1, 20121 and trafficking in stolen property and

2

theft of the means of transportation with an offense date of January 21, 2012.2 Trial is

3

currently scheduled to begin on August 5, 2014.3

4

In his Petition, Petitioner names Joseph M. Arpaio as Respondent and the Arizona

5

Attorney General as an Additional Respondent.

6

wrongfully detained and falsely arrested.

7

preliminary hearing warranting his release under state law. Petitioner also seeks the

8

dismissal of his pending criminal charges with prejudice.

9

III.

Petitioner asserts that he has been

He asserts that he was denied a timely

Federal Habeas Relief

10

Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 concerning pending

11

state criminal proceedings. A challenge to pretrial incarceration may be properly brought

12

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2254. McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d

13

822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). Section 2241(c)(3) provides that “the writ of habeas corpus

14

[extends to persons who are] ... in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

15

treaties of the United States ....” However, “federal habeas relief does not lie, absent

16

‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative defense to a state

17

criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court.” See Braden v. 30th

18

Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (emphasis added); Carden

19

v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining that for reasons of comity, a

20

pretrial detainee must show special circumstances, in addition to the merits of a speedy

21

trial claim, warranting federal intervention in state criminal proceedings and noting that

22

“unlike the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Speedy Trial Clause, when raised as an

23

affirmative defense, does not embody a right which is necessarily forfeited by delaying

24
25
26
27
28

1

See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/case
Info.asp?caseNumber=CR2012-134932 (last visited June 27, 2014).
2

See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/case
Info.asp?caseNumber=CR2012-139029 (last visited June 27, 2014).
3

See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/062014/m6359209.
pdf (last visited June 27, 2014).
-2-

1

review until after trial.”); accord Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-901 (9th Cir. 2012);

2

see Politano v. Miller, No. Civil 08-238, 2008 WL 906300, at *4-5 (D. Minn. Mar. 31,

3

2008) (finding alleged speedy trial violation did not constitute special circumstance

4

within Braden where petitioner sought dismissal of criminal charges, rather than

5

immediate trial, and had not exhausted claim).

6

Further, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),

7

prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing state

8

criminal proceedings. The Younger abstention doctrine also applies while a case works

9

its way through the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub.

10

Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited,

11

extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with

12

ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a

13

prisoner alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie,

14

967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a

15

detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal

16

of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden,

17

410 U.S. at 489-90; see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court, 218

18

F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000); see also Humphrey v. Plummer, 840 F. Supp.2d 1040,

19

1043 (S.D. Ohio 2011).

20

Because Petitioner seeks relief as to his pending state criminal charges, the Court

21

construes his Petition as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. So construed, his Petition

22

will be denied. Petitioner has not alleged any ground that falls within the very limited

23

circumstances in which a federal court may intercede in ongoing state criminal

24

proceedings under the Younger doctrine. He does not assert a violation of the Fifth

25

Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, or facts to support such violation, nor does he

26

allege that his speedy trial rights have been violated.

27

dismissal of his state criminal charges and his immediate release. Because Petitioner has

28

not asserted a basis for a federal court to interfere in his pending state criminal
-3-

Rather, Petitioner seeks the

1

proceedings, his Petition and this action will be dismissed.

2

IT IS ORDERED:

3

(1)

Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted.

4

(2)

Petitioner’s motion for expedited ruling is granted. (Doc. 11.)

5

(3)

The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1.)

6

(4)

Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the

7

event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability

8

because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See

9

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

10

Dated this 9th day of July, 2014.

11
12
13
14
15

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-