Grimes v. Wong et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING ( 2 , 4 ) LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/20/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 JEROME L. GRIMES, 4 5 6 No. C 12-5698 CW (PR) Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. HONORABLE GERALD WONG, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 ________________________________/ (Docket nos. 2, 4) 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Petitioner Jerome L. Grimes is incarcerated at the San 11 Francisco County Jail. 12 habeas corpus action he had not been convicted and was involved in 13 ongoing state criminal proceedings. 14 not easy to decipher, but he appears to claim that, among other 15 things, the judge presiding over his criminal proceedings has not 16 allowed him to represent himself in propria persona after finding 17 him incompetent to stand trial. 18 in his ongoing state proceedings. 19 At the time he filed the instant pro se Petitioner’s allegations are He asks this Court to intervene A federal court has authority to entertain a petition for a 20 writ of habeas corpus by a person in state custody, but not yet 21 convicted or sentenced. 22 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Application of Floyd, 413 F. Supp. 574, 576 23 (D. Nev. 1976). 24 judgment of a state court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and therefore brings 25 his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 26 824 n.1. 27 petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), principles of 28 federalism and comity require that a federal court abstain until See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 Such a person is not in custody “pursuant to the McNeely, 336 F.3d at Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a 1 all state criminal proceedings are completed and the petitioner 2 exhausts available judicial state remedies, unless special 3 circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state 4 criminal trial can be found. 5 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see 6 also United States ex rel. Goodman v. Kehl, 456 F.2d 863, 869 (2d 7 Cir. 1972) (pretrial detainees must first exhaust state remedies). 8 9 See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, Here, Petitioner alleges no special circumstances warranting the Court’s intervention in his ongoing state proceedings. All of United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 his claims are amenable to state court review through available 11 state procedures. 12 on abstention grounds. 13 Petitioner’s filing a petition challenging his criminal 14 proceedings once those proceedings have concluded, and after he 15 has exhausted state judicial remedies by presenting the highest 16 state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the 17 merits of each and every claim he seeks to raise in federal court. 18 See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c)); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 19 (1982). 20 21 The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner’s in forma pauperis application is incomplete. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 22 23 Accordingly, the petition is hereby DISMISSED The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file. 24 This Order terminates Docket nos. 2 and 4. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 Dated: 11/20/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?