Smith v. Fresno County Superior Court et al

Filing 7

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Regarding 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/1/2013, referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R Due Within Thirty Days. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
WILLIAM CLIFFORD SMITH,

1:13-CV-00380 LJO GSA HC

13
Petitioner,
14
15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

v.

16
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
17
Respondent.
18

/

19
Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 2254. According to the petition, he is currently confined in the Fresno County Jail.
21

BACKGROUND1

22
Petitioner is currently awaiting trial in Case #F12904584 in Fresno County Superior Court on
23
charges of felony evading a peace officer and driving under the influence. Petitioner complains that
24
he is being denied his right to a speedy trial, that the prosecutor has committed misconduct by
25
withdrawing the initial misdemeanor charge of evading a peace officer and refiling it as a felony, and
26
that he is being confined unlawfully.
27
28

1

This information is derived from the petition for writ of habeas corpus and attached exhibits.

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

cd

1

1

Prior to his custody in Fresno County Jail, Petitioner was incarcerated at the Federal

2

Correctional Institution at Terminal Island, California, on federal charges. While in federal custody,

3

Petitioner filed motions for speedy trial pursuant to Cal. Penal Code §§ 1381.5, 1382, and 1389 in

4

the Fresno County Superior Court in Case Nos. M11917027/F11904315. He states that pursuant to

5

§§ 1382 and 1389, the state court was required to bring him to trial within 120 days. He states he

6

was not arraigned or tried within that time period, and therefore the charges should have been and

7

must now be dismissed. However, the state court noted that this claim is moot because the District

8

Attorney dismissed those charges. The People then refiled new charges in a new case, Case No.

9

F12904584. According to Petitioner, he is now pending trial on the new charges in Case No.

10

F12904584.

11

Petitioner also complains that the charges should have been dismissed with prejudice when

12

the state court failed to try him within the stated time period. The state court noted, however, that

13

according to state law, dismissal is required only when the defendant fully complies with all of the

14

requirements of Cal. Penal Code § 1389. The state court found that Petitioner had failed to fully

15

comply with the statute because he did not follow the procedure set forth in the statute. Therefore,

16

the state court determined that even assuming there was a violation of Petitioner’s right to a speedy

17

trial under state law, the prosecution was entitled to dismiss the original case and refile the action.

18

DISCUSSION

19

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

20

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk
to notify the petitioner.

21
22

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

23

habeas corpus on its own motion under Rule 4.

24

In this case, the determinative issue is whether this Court should abstain from intervening in

25

the State’s criminal prosecution of Petitioner prior to trial. Principles of comity and federalism

26

generally preclude a federal court from enjoining state criminal proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401

27

U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). This is known as the Younger abstention doctrine. In Drury v. Cox, 457

28

F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam), the Ninth Circuit stated that “[o]ur reading of Younger

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

cd

2

1

v. Harris convinces us that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have

2

federal imposition by way of . . . habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been

3

appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not

4

enough.” (Citations omitted.) The Younger abstention doctrine applies if the state proceeding is (1)

5

currently pending; (2) involves an important state interest; and (3) affords the petitioner an adequate

6

opportunity to raise constitutional claims. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar

7

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). The inquiry is triggered “when the relief sought in federal court

8

would in some manner directly ‘interfere with’ ongoing state proceedings.” Gilbertson v. Albright,

9

381 F.3d 965, 976 (9th Cir.2004). If the three Younger requirements are met, the federal court is

10

required to abstain unless Petitioner demonstrates that the state proceedings are motivated by bad

11

faith, the state law being challenged is patently unconstitutional, or there is no adequate alternative

12

state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised. Younger, 401 U.S. at 45, 53-54. These

13

considerations are to be construed “very narrowly” and invoked only in “extraordinary

14

circumstances.” Id., at 53-54. Nevertheless, the Younger abstention doctrine will not bar a defendant

15

seeking to enforce his constitutional right to a timely trial. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of

16

Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973) (permitting defendant to raise speedy trial challenge to

17

ongoing state criminal action where he only sought to “demand enforcement of the Commonwealth’s

18

affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to trial”).

19

In this case, it is clear the Younger abstention doctrine applies. State criminal proceedings

20

are pending, the prosecution of crimes is an important state interest, and the criminal trial and

21

appellate process provide Petitioner an adequate opportunity to present his constitutional claims.

22

Therefore, Younger precludes federal intervention unless Petitioner can demonstrate that the state

23

proceedings are motivated by bad faith, the state law is unconstitutional, or there is no adequate

24

alternative state forum to raise the constitutional issues. Petitioner complains that the prosecution’s

25

act of dismissing charges and refiling new charges was done in bad faith. The Court is not

26

persuaded. According to the state court, these actions comported with state law and procedure. In

27

addition, the trial and appellate courts are proper forums to raise his issues. There is no question that

28

his claims have been addressed.

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

cd

3

1

Nevertheless, as noted above, a petitioner can seek federal intervention to enforce his

2

constitutional right to a timely trial. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489-90. In Braden, the State of Kentucky

3

failed to bring the defendant to trial despite repeated demands by the defendant that he be brought to

4

trial. Id. The Supreme Court permitted federal intervention in order to redress the defendant’s

5

“present denial of a speedy trial.” Id. In this case, Petitioner claims a violation of his right to a

6

speedy trial. However, he does not claim that he is not being brought to trial in a timely manner.

7

Rather, his claims relate to an alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial with respect to criminal

8

charges that have already been dismissed. His claim to compel a speedy trial became moot with the

9

dismissal of the prior charges. According to the petition, the State is actively proceeding with a trial

10

on newly-filed charges. Indeed, the concerns in Braden are not present in this case at all, since

11

Petitioner is not seeking to compel a speedy trial, but rather the complete opposite. He seeks to

12

enjoin the State from proceeding to trial on the newly-filed charges. Therefore, the Younger doctrine

13

precludes federal intervention. Moreover, his complaints concerning the state court’s determination

14

of state law and procedure in allowing the prosecution to dismiss charges and refile new charges is

15

entirely a question of state law, and is therefore not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Estelle v.

16

McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67, (1991) ("We have stated many times that 'federal habeas corpus relief

17

does not lie for errors of state law.'")

18

Comity and federalism preclude this Court from intervening in the State’s criminal

19

prosecution of Petitioner. There are no extraordinary or special circumstances which would warrant

20

federal intervention. There is no need to compel the State to bring Petitioner to trial as it is clear

21

from the petition and attached exhibits that the State is proceeding to trial on the new charges, and in

22

fact, Petitioner seeks the complete opposite. As to Petitioner’s other claims, Petitioner has not shown

23

any possible irreparable injury in waiting until after trial to assert his claims.

24

RECOMMENDATION

25

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

26

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

27
28

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill,
United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule

U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

cd

4

1

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

2

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the

3

Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

4

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

6

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
6i0kij

April 1, 2013

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
U .S. D istrict C ourt
E. D . C alifornia

cd

5