Mada-Lastra v. Unknown Party

Filing 14

ORDER: Petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9 ) is granted. Petitioners Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5 ) and this case are dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner's pending Motions (Docs. 11 , 12 , and 13 ) are denied as moot. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 09/18/2015. (REK)

1
2

KM
WO

3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Rafael Mada-Lastra,

10

No. CV 15-0734-PHX-DGC (ESW)
Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office,

13

ORDER

Respondent.

14
Petitioner Rafael Mada-Lastra, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth

15
16

Avenue Jail, filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” which the Court construed

17

as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In a May 18, 2015

18

Order, the Court directed Petitioner to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed

19

In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Petition with leave to amend.
On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 5) and an unsigned

20
21

Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed

22

a “Motion for Verification” in which he asked the Court to verify that it received his

23

Amended Petition and Application to Proceed. In a July 21, 2015 Order, the Court

24

granted the Motion for Verification and denied the Application to Proceed with leave to

25

refile.

26

On July 31, 2015, Petitioner filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma

27

Pauperis (Doc. 9). On August 24, 2015, Petitioner filed two Motions for “Final

28

Disclosure of All Untried Charges (Docs. 11 and 12). On August 31, 2015, Petitioner

1

filed a “Request for Final Disposition of All Charges” (Doc. 13), which appears to seek

2

the same relief as the August 24 Motions.

3

The Court will dismiss the Amended Petition without prejudice and deny the

4

pending Motions as moot.

5

I.

6

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Petitioner’s July 31 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his

7

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

8

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

9

II.

10

Petitioner challenges his ongoing criminal proceedings in Maricopa County

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – Failure to Exhaust State
Remedies

Superior Court, case # CR 2015-002065-002. Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., provides an
avenue for habeas corpus relief for a pretrial detainee in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States. “As an exercise of judicial
restraint, however, federal courts elect not to entertain habeas corpus challenges to state
court proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state avenues for raising [a]
federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner has not
exhausted his state remedies before bringing this habeas corpus action.
III.

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

prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing
criminal proceedings in state court. Absent special circumstances, such as “proven
harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of
obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where
irreparable injury can be shown,” a federal court will not entertain a pretrial habeas
corpus petition. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85
(1971)). “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have
federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in,

-2-

1

judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.” Id. at 83-

2

84 (quoting Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)).

3

Petitioner has failed to show special or extraordinary circumstances indicating that

4

he will suffer irreparable harm if this Court abstains from hearing his claims until after he

5

has a chance to present his claims to the state courts. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46;

6

Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-84. This Court, therefore, will abstain from interfering in

7

Petitioner’s ongoing state-court criminal proceedings.

8

IV.

Dismissal Without Prejudice

9

The Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. Petitioner may file another

10

petition in a new habeas corpus action after all state criminal proceedings are completed

11

and available state judicial remedies are exhausted. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d

12

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[E]xcept in habeas petitions in life-sentence or capital cases,

13

claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once the

14

Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.”).

15

IT IS ORDERED:

16

(1)

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

17

(2)

Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) and this case are

18

dismissed without prejudice.

19

(3)

Petitioner’s pending Motions (Docs. 11, 12, and 13) are denied as moot.

20

(4)

The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

21

Dated this 18th day of September, 2015.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-