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)

Download PDF
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?