Krzysztof Wolinski v. M. Colvin et al

Filing 29

DISREGARD ERRONEOUS ATTACHMENT - ORDER OF DISMISSAL (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/8/2018) Modified on 1/8/2018 (tfS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEORGE NIMER MARTHA, Petitioner, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 17-cv-05484-SI ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 7 NAPA STATE HOSPITAL, Respondent. 12 13 George Martha, an inmate at the Napa State Hospital, filed a petition for writ of habeas 14 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant 15 to 28 U.S.C. §2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 16 At the time he filed his petition in this action, Martha was a pretrial detainee. His petition 17 indicates that he was sent to Napa State Hospital following a determination that he was not 18 competent to stand trial. He had not been determined to be competent to stand trial as of 19 August 5, 2017. See Docket No. 1 at 8. Although the petition makes little sense, it appears to 20 challenge to the criminal prosecution against him; he alleges that his arrest violated due process 21 because his brother used a fake name when he filed a false police report against Martha. See id. at 22 7. Elsewhere, Martha contends that his rights were violated because he had to wait ten months for 23 bed space to open up at Napa State Hospital so that he could be sent there, and because his right to 24 confront his accuser was violated due to his brother‟s use of a fake name. See Docket No. 6. 25 Martha did not present any of his claims to the California Supreme Court on direct appeal or in a 26 state habeas petition before filing this action. See Docket No. 1 at 3. 27 Principles of comity and federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain a pre- 28 trial habeas challenge unless the petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 2 F.2d 82, 83-84 (1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 3 37, 43-54 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere 4 with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 5 extraordinary circumstances). 6 intervention before trial include proven harassment, bad faith prosecutions and other extraordinary 7 circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (violation of speedy 8 trial right not alone an extraordinary circumstance). Because Martha has not shown special 9 circumstances that warrant federal intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is 10 completed, this court will abstain and DISMISS the petition without prejudice. See id. at 84. The 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 1 alleged constitutional violations that Martha claims have occurred are matters that can and should 12 be addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before 13 Martha seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus. The special circumstances that might warrant federal habeas 14 Another reason for Martha to focus his energies in state court is that most, if not all, of his 15 challenges to his arrest cannot be entertained in a federal habeas action -- regardless of whether he 16 presents them while he is a pretrial detainee or after he suffers a conviction. The case of Stone v. 17 Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 481-82 (1976) bars federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims 18 unless the state did not provide an opportunity for full and fair litigation of those claims. 19 California state procedures provide an opportunity for full litigation of any Fourth Amendment 20 claim. See Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 613-14 (9th Cir. 1990) (whether or not defendant 21 litigated Fourth Amendment claim in state court is irrelevant if he had opportunity to do so under 22 California law). Because California provides a full and fair opportunity to litigate claims of 23 unreasonable searches and seizures, this court is precluded from granting habeas relief on such 24 claims. Further, because the Fourth Amendment provides the constitutional protection against an 25 unreasonable search or seizure, Martha cannot rely on the more generalized notion of “substantive 26 due process” to obtain relief for an allegedly improper search or seizure. See Albright v. Oliver, 27 510 U.S. 266, 273 (1994) (“Where a particular Amendment „provides an explicit textual source of 28 constitutional protection‟ against a particular sort of government behavior, „that Amendment, not 2 1 the more generalized notion of “substantive due process,” must be the guide for analyzing these 2 claims‟”). 3 For the foregoing reasons, this action is DISMISSED. The dismissal of this action is 4 without prejudice to Martha filing a new habeas petition, but he should not file a new federal 5 petition for writ of habeas corpus unless he is convicted and his direct appeal and state habeas 6 proceedings have concluded so that the state‟s highest court has a fair opportunity to rule on each 7 of his claims. 8 Martha‟s in forma pauperis application is GRANTED. Docket No. 7. 9 The clerk shall close the file. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 8, 2018 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge 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?