Hollins v. Munks
Filing
3
ORDER DISMISSING CASES AND DENYING CERTIFICATES OF APPEALABILITY, ***Civil Case Terminated. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 1/13/14. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/13/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
OAKLAND DIVISION
6
7
8
MICHAEL HOLLINS,
9
Petitioner,
No. C 13-6014 PJH (PR)
vs.
ORDER DISMISSING CASES
AND DENYING
CERTIFICATES OF
APPEALABILITY
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
GREG MUNKS,
12
Respondent.
13
/
14
MICHAEL HOLLINS,
No. C 13-6015 PJH (PR)
15
Petitioner,
16
vs.
17
GREG MUNKS,
18
Respondent.
19
/
20
These habeas cases were filed pro se by a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Maguire
21
Correctional Facility.1 Petitioner is in jail awaiting trial for a violation of California Penal
22
Code § 485, theft of lost property. In a case filed a month prior, petitioner sought for this
23
court to intervene in the ongoing state criminal proceeding. See No. C 13-5087 PJH (PR).
24
In the earlier case, the court set forth the relevant law regarding abstention and Younger v.
25
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), and ordered petitioner to show cause why the case
26
should not be dismissed. In No. 13-5087 petitioner replied that he did not want the court to
27
28
1
Petitioner has filed eleven other cases in this court in the last two months, several with
overlapping claims.
1
intervene in his ongoing criminal proceeding, rather he was concerned with the conditions
2
of confinement. As a result, that case was dismissed, as was another case that sought the
3
same relief, No. 13-5829.
4
In the current case, No. 13-6014, petitioner states that the prosecutor is not
5
providing discovery and petitioner did not attend his preliminary hearing. The case is
6
dismissed as duplicative of the prior cases and pursuant to Younger. In the other pending
7
case, No. 13-6015, petitioner has filed a habeas petition regarding the medical care he is
8
receiving at the jail. Petitioner has previously been informed that claims regarding
9
conditions of confinement must be filed as civil rights actions and plaintiff has several civil
rights cases pending. Case No. 13-6015 will be dismissed as it is not properly brought as a
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
habeas petition.
12
Petitioner is informed that should he continue to file frivolous, meritless and
13
duplicative actions the court will consider deeming petitioner a vexatious litigant. Flagrant
14
abuse of the judicial process cannot be tolerated because it enables one person to preempt
15
the use of judicial time that properly could be used to consider the meritorious claims of
16
other litigants. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1148 (9th Cir.), cert. denied,
17
489 U.S. 1001 (1990).
18
CONCLUSION
19
1. The petitions are DISMISSED for the reasons set out above. Because
20
reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of appealability
21
(“COA”) is DENIED in both cases. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)
22
(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file.
23
24
25
26
2. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2 in No. 13-6015) is
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 13, 2014.
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
27
G:\PRO-SE\PJH\HC.13\Hollins.dsm.wpd
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?