Grimes v. Wong

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 JEROME L. GRIMES, 5 6 7 8 Petitioner, v. HONORABLE GARRETT WONG, AKA GERRALD WONG, United States District Court For the Northern District of California ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Respondent. 9 10 No. C 12-5989 CW (PR) ________________________________/ 11 Petitioner Jerome L. Grimes is incarcerated at the San 12 Francisco County Jail. 13 14 He has not been convicted and is involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings. This is the second pro se habeas corpus action Petitioner has 15 filed in this court in the past thirty days. 16 petition, he claimed that the judge presiding over his criminal 17 proceedings had not allowed him to represent himself in propria 18 persona after finding him incompetent to stand trial, in violation 19 of his rights under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 20 He asked this Court to intervene in his ongoing state proceedings. 21 The Court dismissed the petition without prejudice on abstention 22 grounds. 23 In his first In the present action, Petitioner has filed what is captioned 24 as an “Information Motion,” in which he apparently is informing 25 the Court that he pursued his Faretta claim all the way to the 26 California Supreme Court. 27 request by Petitioner for this Court to review the Faretta claim. 28 The motion appears to be a renewed The Court declines to do so, for the reasons set forth in the 1 order dismissing the first petition: 2 [P]rinciples of federalism and comity require that a federal court abstain until all state criminal proceedings are completed and the petitioner exhausts available judicial state remedies, unless special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial can be found. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also United States ex rel. Goodman v. Kehl, 456 F.2d 863, 869 (2d Cir. 1972) (pretrial detainees must first exhaust state remedies). 3 4 5 6 7 Here, Petitioner alleges no special circumstances warranting the Court’s intervention in his ongoing state proceedings. All of his claims are amenable to state court review through available state procedures. Accordingly, the petition is hereby DISMISSED on abstention grounds. The dismissal is without prejudice to Petitioner’s filing a petition challenging his criminal proceedings once those proceedings have concluded, and after he has exhausted state judicial remedies by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim he seeks to raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c)); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 Grimes v. Wong, C 12-5698 CW (PR), Docket no. 5 at 1:27-2:19. 16 The Court will not intervene in Petitioner’s ongoing state 17 proceedings until they have concluded and he has exhausted his 18 state judicial remedies. Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED 19 without prejudice. 20 Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. 21 The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the 22 file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: 12/12/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 26 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?