Jonathan F. Burke v. Warden

Filing 9

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. The Court dismisses this habeas corpus action for lack of habeas jurisdiction and Younger abstention reasons. (see document for further details) Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (hr)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

JONATHAN F. BURKE,
Petitioner,

14
15

v.

16

UNKNOWN,

Case No. ED CV 22-1478 SVW (MRW)
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Respondent.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court dismisses this habeas corpus action for lack of habeas
jurisdiction and Younger abstention reasons.
***
1.

In August 2022, Petitioner Burke filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus in this federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner used
the Court’s standard habeas form petition (Form CV-69) to present his
claims. (Docket # 1.)
2.

The gist of the claims (grievances against his appointed defense

lawyer, the prosecutor, and the trial judge) and his location in local custody

1

suggested that Petitioner was a pretrial detainee, not a convicted person

2

seeking review of his criminal conviction. Additionally, Petitioner provided

3

no information about the criminal charges, his sentence, or the status of

4

post-conviction appellate proceedings.

5

3.

For these reasons, Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the

6

petition. Judge Wilner explained that habeas relief was not available

7

under AEDPA for those involved in ongoing criminal cases. The screening

8

order also identified other obvious procedural defects with the petition.

9

The magistrate judge directed Petitioner to submit a supplemental

10

statement addressing these issues, explaining why the action should not be

11

dismissed, and setting forth the status of Petitioner’s criminal case.

12

(Docket # 7.)

13

4.

Petitioner filed a timely statement. (Docket # 8.) The

14

statement did not address the substance of Judge Wilner’s screening order.

15

However, the statement made clear that Petitioner is involved in an

16

ongoing criminal case. The closing paragraph of the statement also

17

clarified that Petitioner does not seek habeas corpus relief from a

18

conviction. Rather, Petitioner is “suing for civil rights violations [and] false

19

incarceration” from the named parties. (Id. at 4.)

20
21

***
5.

If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person

22

detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a

23

habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing

24

Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be

25

summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil

26

Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary

27
28
2

1

dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition

2

[ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”).

3
4

***
6.

The petition must be dismissed. AEDPA allows federal review

5

on behalf of “a person in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court

6

only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution” or

7

other provision of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (emphasis added).

8

Here, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee who has not been criminally

9

convicted. There is no judgment for this federal court to review.

10
11

Petitioner’s habeas petition is premature.
7.

Further, because of the existence of an ongoing criminal case,

12

Younger abstention is appropriate. Federal courts generally abstain from

13

interfering with pending state criminal proceedings until the conviction

14

becomes final after the conclusion of appellate proceedings. Younger v.

15

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of

16

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (same). Younger abstention “is

17

appropriate if (1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) the

18

proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is adequate

19

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions.” Dubinka

20

v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Sheehee v.

21

Baca, 588 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). These factors militate

22

against allowing a habeas action to proceed.

23

8.

Finally, the Court recognizes that it has discretion to convert a

24

habeas petition into a civil rights complaint, but declines to do so here.

25

Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (superceded by statute on

26

other grounds). The petition is too vague in identifying any culpable

27

tortfeasor, and does not adequately set forth all elements of a violation of

28
3

1

federal law. Moreover, Petitioner would be liable for a considerably higher

2

filing fee should the Court automatically convert the petition to a civil

3

complaint. The prudent outcome is to dismiss the habeas action without

4

initiating a civil rights action.

5
6
7

Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without
prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

September 15, 2022
Dated: __________________

11
12
13

_______________________________
_____________________
_
___
HON. STEPHEN V
V. WILSON
HON
WIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

14
15
16
17

____________________________________
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4