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)

Download PDF
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-

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?