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)

Download PDF
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

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?