Perroton v. Munks

Filing 3

ORDER of DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/27/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JON PERROTON,
Petitioner,

9
10
11
12

vs.
GREG MUNKS, Sheriff,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 13-1051 CRB (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

13
14

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee facing state criminal charges in San Mateo

15

County Superior Court, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

16

challenging his detention. He also alleges inadequate medical care at the San

17

Mateo County Jail.

18

Petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by

19

way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But

20

principles of comity and federalism require that this court abstain and not

21

entertain any such pre-sentence habeas challenge unless petitioner shows that:

22

(1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) "special

23

circumstances" warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82,

24

83-84 (9th Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions

25

undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid

26

conviction and perhaps in other special circumstances where irreparable injury

27

can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions

28

appropriate. Id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)).

1

Petitioner makes no such showing of "special circumstances" warranting federal

2

intervention. See id. Petitioner's challenge of his pretrial detention is

3

DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling a habeas petition after state criminal

4

proceedings, including appeal, are completed.

5

Petitioner's additional challenge in his habeas petition of the medical care

6

at the San Mateo County Jail is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a civil

7

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although the Supreme Court has not

8

addressed whether a challenge to a condition of confinement may be brought

9

under habeas, see Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 526 n.6 (1979), the Ninth

10

Circuit has held that habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 action proper,

11

where, as here, a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily

12

shorten the prisoner's sentence. Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.

13

2003); see also Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1979)

14

(affirming dismissal of habeas petition on basis that challenges to terms and

15

conditions of confinement must be brought in civil rights complaint).

16

The clerk shall send petitioner a prisoner civil rights complaint form, enter

17

judgment in accordance with this order, terminate all pending motions as moot,

18

and close the file.

19

SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: March 27, 2013

21

CHARLES R. BREYER
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
G:\PRO-SE\CRB\HC.13\Perroton, J.13-1051.dismissal.wpd

27
28

2