Crowley v. Babeu et al
Filing
7
ORDER that Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1 ) and this case are dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk must enter judgment and close this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying 2 Petitioner's Application/Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 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 Courts procedural ruling debatable. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/8/14.(LSP)
1
WO
MD
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Robert Jay Crowley,
10
No. CV 14-00988-PHX-SPL (MHB)
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Sheriff Paul Babeu, et al.,
ORDER
13
Respondents.
14
15
Petitioner Robert Jay Crowley, who has been released on bond from the Pinal
16
County Adult Detention Facility, has filed an unsigned pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas
17
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed In Forma
18
Pauperis (Doc. 2). The Court will dismiss the Petition and this action.1
19
I.
Petition
20
Petitioner filed his Petition on May 8, 2014 as a pre-trial detainee in the Pinal
21
County Jail, where he was awaiting trial in Pinal County Superior Court case
22
#CR201300870.
23
indicating that he has been released on bond. In his Petition, Petitioner names Sheriff
On June 2, 2014, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address,
24
25
26
27
28
1
Ordinarily, before screening the Petition, the Court would require Petitioner to
file a signed Certificate certifying that his signature on the Certificate shall serve as an
original signature on his § 2254 Petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(c)(5) of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a); LRCiv 3.5(a). However, because
Petitioner’s Petition is obviously premature, the Court will not require a signature
certification.
1
Paul Babeu as Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an Additional
2
Respondent.
3
Petitioner raises four grounds for relief. In Ground One, Petitioner alleges that his
4
Fourth Amendment rights have been violated by a search warrant that he believes “was
5
manufactured by the prosecution.” In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that his Sixth
6
Amendment rights were violated because he was arrested in Pinal County, which was
7
outside of the arresting officers’ jurisdiction, because he has not received “proper
8
counsel,” and because there has been “no jury trial in Maricopa County.” In Ground
9
Three, Petitioner alleges that excessive bail has been imposed and he lacks access to a
10
law library, in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. In Ground Four, Petitioner
11
alleges that his Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated by an invalid search
12
warrant, an unlawful arrest, lack of due process, tampering with evidence, and the taking
13
of his property.
14
Petitioner seeks to have his freedom restored, to have the charges against him
15
dismissed, and to have his bail lowered.
16
II.
Discussion
17
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, “a district court shall entertain an application for
18
writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
19
court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
20
treaties of the United States.” Before the court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner,
21
the prisoner must exhaust remedies available in the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1);
22
O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). An Arizona petitioner sentenced to
23
less than the death penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them in a
24
procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of Appeals on direct appeal and/or in post-
25
conviction proceedings, without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme
26
Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F. Supp. 2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following
27
1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal
28
-2-
1
convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf. Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 1008,
2
1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (citing pre-1989 statute).
3
Petitioner does not allege that he has been convicted or sentenced in violation of
4
his federal constitutional rights. Indeed, it appears that he is awaiting trial in state court.
5
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Petitioner’s Petition as premature and will dismiss
6
this case without prejudice.
7
To the extent Petitioner is seeking to have this Court intervene in his state court
8
proceedings, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
9
prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing
10
criminal proceedings in state court. The Younger abstention doctrine also bars requests
11
for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff’s
12
ongoing state criminal prosecution. Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
13
In addition, the Younger abstention doctrine applies while a case works its way through
14
the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v.
15
Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989).
16
extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with
17
ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a
18
prisoner alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie,
19
967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a
20
detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal
21
of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden v.
22
30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973); see In re Justices
23
of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000).
24
Such extraordinary circumstances are not present in this case.
25
IT IS ORDERED:
26
27
28
(1)
Only in limited,
Petitioner’s Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and this case are
dismissed without prejudice.
(2)
The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
-3-
1
(3)
Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied.
2
(4)
Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the
3
event Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability
4
because reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See
5
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
6
Dated this 8th day of July, 2014.
7
8
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?