Beal v. Ryan

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/12/2016) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/12/2016: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHARLES CLIFTON BEAL, Case No. 15-cv-05378-SI Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 10 DEBORAH RYAN, Re: Dkt. No. 1 Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Charles Clifton Beal, an inmate at the Santa Clara County Jail, has filed this pro se civil 14 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Beal alleges that he asked for a speedy 15 trial on July 24 or 29, 2015, and defendant Judge Deborah Ryan responded, “‘you don’t have the 16 rights. I am not doing it.’” Docket No. 1 at 3. His prayer for relief requests that he be released 17 from jail. 18 Beal’s complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which 19 requires the court to screen any case in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity 20 or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 21 cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 22 upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from 23 such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. 24 Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). In its review the court must identify any 25 To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 26 right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 27 violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 28 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 1 Liberally construed, the complaint alleges that the defendant denied Beal his right to a 2 speedy trial. The complaint attacks the lawfulness of his custody, and specifically seeks his 3 release from jail as the only remedy. “Habeas is the exclusive remedy . . . for the prisoner who 4 seeks ‘immediate or speedier release’ from confinement.” Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 524 5 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 6 500 (1973). Beal’s complaint under § 1983 therefore must be dismissed because his claim can 7 proceed, if at all, only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The proper disposition of a civil 8 rights complaint seeking habeas relief is a dismissal without prejudice to the prisoner bringing it as 9 a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 583, 586 (9th Cir. 10 1995). United States District Court Northern District of California 11 A petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a 12 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. However, principles of comity and 13 federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain any such pretrial habeas challenge 14 unless petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) 15 “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th 16 Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in 17 bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other special circumstances 18 where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state 19 prosecutions appropriate. Id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)); e.g., id. 20 (speedy trial claim is preferably reviewed after trial). 21 For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Beal 22 filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus. He may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus if he 23 ever is convicted, but may only file that petition after he exhausts state court remedies for each 24 claim he wishes to present in a federal habeas petition. He also may file a pretrial petition for writ 25 of habeas corpus before he is convicted, but only after he exhausts state court remedies for each 26 claim he wishes to present and demonstrates special circumstances warranting federal intervention 27 28 2 1 before the conclusion of his state court criminal proceedings. 2 The clerk shall close the file. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 Dated: January 12, 2016 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?