David James Lack v. Bill Brown
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 . Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to its refiling after petitioners criminal proceedings, including any direct appeal, are completed. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84-85 (9th Cir.) (rejecting a claim that the petitioners would be irreparably harmed by waiting until after state trial to assert their speedy trial claim), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980). (See attached order for further details.) (jsan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DAVID JAMES LACK,
SHERIFF BILL BROWN,
Case No. CV 17-26-BRO(AJW)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On January 3, 2017, petitioner filed this petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. The petition challenges criminal proceedings in the
Specifically, petitioner alleges that he has been deprived of his right
to a speedy trial and seeks an order dismissing the charges against
him. [Petition at 2-9]. For the following reasons, the petition is
subject to summary dismissal.1
proceedings is precluded by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section cases requires a judge
promptly to examine a federal habeas corpus petition, and to dismiss it
if “it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that
the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”
1 have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until
2 after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case
3 concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-765
4 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). Although Younger abstention may not be
5 warranted if a prosecution is “undertaken by state officials without
6 hope of obtaining a valid conviction” or if a challenged criminal
7 statute is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional
8 prohibitions”, Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971), petitioner has
9 not made such a showing. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900, 903
11 circumstances, principles of federalism and comity prohibit a federal
12 district court from entertaining a pre-conviction habeas petition that
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice to its
16 refiling after petitioner’s criminal proceedings, including any direct
17 appeal, are completed. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84-85 (9th
18 Cir.) (rejecting a claim that the petitioners would be irreparably
19 harmed by waiting until after state trial to assert their speedy trial
20 claim), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980).
It is so ordered.
Dated: January 11, 2017
Beverly Reid O’Connell
United States District Judge
The policy underlying Younger abstention is sufficiently important
that federal courts may raise the issue sua sponte. See Hoye v. City of
Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 843 n. 5 (9th Cir. 2011).
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?