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-