Grimes v. Superior Court of California et al

Filing 3

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/28/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JEROME L. GRIMES,

5
6
7

Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT,

8
9

No. C 13-0480 CW (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND
DENYING LEAVE TO
PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

Respondent.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Petitioner Jerome L. Grimes has been found incompetent to

12

stand trial and currently is incarcerated at Napa State Hospital.

13

This is the third pro se habeas corpus action Petitioner has

14

filed in this court concerning his ongoing state criminal

15

proceedings.

16

presiding over his criminal proceedings had not allowed him to

17

represent himself in propria persona after finding him incompetent

18
19
20

In his first petition, he claimed that the judge

to stand trial, in violation of his rights under Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975).
in his ongoing state proceedings.

He asked this Court to intervene
The Court dismissed the

petition without prejudice on abstention grounds.

See Grimes v.

21
Wong, No. C 12-5698 CW (PR).
22
In his second petition, he indicated that he had pursued his
23
Faretta claim all the way to the California Supreme Court and
24
25
26
27
28

renewed his request that this Court review the merit of that
claim.

The Court again declined to do so on abstention grounds.

See Grimes v. Wong, No C 12-5989 CW (PR).
In the present petition, Petitioner informs the Court that

1

after he was found incompetent to stand trial on October 15, 2012,

2

he was transferred to Napa State Hospital on November 12, 2012,

3

for a period of thirty to sixty days to participate in the “Court

4

Trial Competency Program.”

5

challenge the denial of his Faretta motion and the ruling that he

6

is incompetent to stand trial.

7

his state remedies with respect to these claims, and has attached

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Pet. at 2.

He again attempts to

He states that he has exhausted

to his petition a copy of an order filed by the California Supreme
Court on January 18, 2013, that transfers Petitioner’s state
habeas petition to the California Court of Appeal to consider in
the first instance.

Pet. Attach. 1.

He also has attached an

11
order filed by the California Court of Appeal on January 24, 2013,
12
that dismisses the transferred petition as “substantially
13
identical” to prior petitions denied by that court.
14
15

Pet. Attach.

2.
The present petition is subject to dismissal for the same

16

reasons explained in the Court’s prior orders.

17

Petitioner has been found incompetent to stand trial at this time,

18

his state criminal proceedings are ongoing.

19

comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

20

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or

21

declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances.

22

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971).

23

should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a

24

showing of the state’s bad faith or harassment.

25

(holding that the cost, anxiety and inconvenience of a criminal

26

defense are not the kind of special circumstances or irreparable

27

harm that would justify federal court intervention).

28

may be inappropriate in the extraordinary circumstance that the
2

Although

Under principles of

See

Federal courts

See id. at 53-54

Abstention

1

party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate

2

remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied

3

equitable relief.

4

1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44).

See Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522,

In the present case, Petitioner clearly disagrees with the

5
6

state court’s decision to deny his Faretta motion and find him

7

incompetent to stand trial.

8
9

criminal proceedings, however, the state court system provides him
with adequate means to raise his legal challenges.
The Court will not intervene in Petitioner’s ongoing state

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

proceedings until they have concluded and he has exhausted his
state judicial remedies.1

Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the

15

17
18

Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED

without prejudice.

14

16

At this stage of Petitioner’s

file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/28/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Petitioner maintains he exhausted state remedies because
his petition was rejected by the California Supreme Court. The
exhaustion requirement is not met, however, when a claim is raised
by a procedural method which makes it unlikely that the claim will
be considered on the merits. See Castille v. Peoples, 489 U.S.
346, 351 (1989). As noted, the California Supreme Court
transferred the petition to the California Court of Appeal to
review in the first instance; this suggests that the petition was
presented to the California Supreme Court by an improper
procedural method. Moreover, even if the claims are exhausted,
the present petition remains subject to dismissal on abstention
grounds.
3