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)
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?