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)

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