Richard Mottashed v. James McDonnel et al

Filing 44

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY by Judge Christina A. Snyder. (See document for further details.) (sbou)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

RICHARD MOTTASHED,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES MCDONNELL, SHERIFF, ET AL., )
)
Respondents.
)
)

CASE NO. CV 16-1296-CAS (PJW)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING
HABEAS CORPUS PETITION AND
DENYING CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY

15
16

In February 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for a “preemptive

17

writ” of habeas corpus, challenging his January 2015 arrest and

18

subsequent detention in Metropolitan State Hospital in Norwalk,

19

California.

20

false charges and that his continuing detention violated his right to

21

a fair and speedy trial.

22

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the Petition on the ground that

23

it was moot in light of the fact that the criminal charges had been

24

dropped.

25

prejudice.

26

(Petition at 2.)

He contended that he was arrested on

(Petition at 2, 3.)

On March 2, 2017,

For the following reasons, the Petition is dismissed with

In January 2015, Petitioner was arrested for an attempted

27

stabbing.

(See Motion, Exh. 18, at 136.)

On February 2, 2015, the

28

superior court halted criminal proceedings and ordered that Petitioner

1

be transferred to the mental health court after his counsel declared a

2

doubt as to his competency.

3

2015, the medical examiner certified that Petitioner was not

4

competent.

5

committed Petitioner to a state hospital for treatment.

6

5, at 45; Exh. 6 at 49-50.)

7

reviewing doctors’ reports, the court again ordered that Petitioner be

8

held and treated at the state hospital.

9

April 2016, the court ordered the county Public Guardian to

(Motion, Exh. 4, at 41-42.)

On April 20,

The court ordered the criminal proceedings suspended and
(Motion, Exh.

In July 2015 and February 2016, after

(Motion, Exhs. 10, 12.)

In

10

investigate whether a conservatorship was appropriate for Petitioner.

11

(Motion, Exh. 15, at 98.)

12

for conservatorship, which the court granted.

13

154; Exh. 22, at 156.)

14

competency proceedings after finding that there was no substantial

15

likelihood that Petitioner would be restored to competency by his

16

maximum commitment date.

17

2017, the superior court dismissed Petitioner’s criminal case.

18

(Motion, Exh. 24, at 162.)1

19

In October 2016, the Public Guardian filed
(Motion, Exh. 21, at

In December 2016, the court terminated

(Motion, Exh. 23, at 159.)

On February 7,

The Court has a duty to screen habeas corpus petitions before

20

ordering service on a respondent.

21

656 (2005).

22

petition that a petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court can

23

dismiss the petition at the outset.

24

§ 2254 Cases.

See Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644,

In doing so, if it plainly appears from the face of a

See Rule 4, Rules Governing

25
26
27
28

1

In March 2016, Petitioner filed a pro se civil rights action
in the district court, alleging that he was being held without a
hearing and medicated against his will. (Mottashed v. Julia, et al.,
CV 16-1571-CAS (PJW), March 7, 2016 Complaint.) The Court thereafter
appointed counsel for Petitioner. On March 23, 2017, the superior
court determined that a guardian ad litem should be appointed for
Petitioner in his civil rights action in federal court. (Mottashed v.
Julia, et al., CV 16-1571-CAS (PJW), Plaintiff’s April 3, 2017 Status
Report.)
2

1

Petitioner contends that he was arrested on false charges and

2

denied the right to a speedy trial.

(Petition at 2-3.)

Now that the

3

state court has dismissed the criminal charges and he is no longer

4

being held in custody on those charges, however, there is no relief

5

available to him in habeas corpus.

6

996, 999 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissing habeas petition as moot where

7

court could not redress petitioner’s injury with a favorable

8

decision); see also Smith v. Fresno County Superior Court, 2013 WL

9

1314694, at *2 (E.D. Cal. April 1, 2013) (holding speedy trial claims

See Burnett v. Lambert, 432 F.3d

10

rendered moot by dismissal of criminal charges); see generally Spencer

11

v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (holding Constitutional “case-or-

12

controversy requirement” means that a party “must have suffered . . .

13

an actual injury . . . likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial

14

decision” if case is not to be dismissed as moot).2

15

Finally, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of

16

the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability

17

will not issue in this action.

18

App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003).

19

IT IS SO ORDERED

20

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R.

DATED: May 9, 2017.

21
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23

Presented by:

24
25

PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26

H:\CASNYDER\R&R & Related - 194\Magistrate Orders\LA16CV01296CASPJW-O.wpd

27
28
2

The Court need not and does not address Respondent’s
contention that the Petition should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust state remedies.
3