Young v. Alameda County Superior Court

Filing 12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT. The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner's returning to federal court after the conclusion of state proceedings and exhausting his state court remedies. Motions terminated: 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Brian Young. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/27/2012. (ecg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

BRIAN YOUNG,
Petitioner,

12
13

vs.

14
15

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT,
Respondent.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. C 11-06235 EJD (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

(Docket No. 4)

17
18

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee housed at the Santa Rita County Jail in Dublin,

19

California, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Petitioner is a pretrial

20

detainee, the Court construes the petition as being brought under § 2241.1 Petitioner

21

has paid the filing fee. Accordingly, his motion for leave to proceed in forma

22

pauperis, (Docket No. 4), is DENIED as moot.

23

DISCUSSION

24
25

According to the petition, Petitioner was arrested in July 2011, on charges of

26
27
28

1

Such a person is not in custody “pursuant to the judgment of a state court,”
28 U.S.C. § 2254, and therefore brings his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
McNeely, 336 F.3d at 824 n.1.
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\06235Young_dism (abst).wpd

1

robbery and felony invasion. (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner alleges that he has been denied his

2

right to a due process by the prosecution’s failure to provide exculpatory evidence

3

before the preliminary hearing in August 2011. (Pet. at 3-6.) Petitioner clearly

4

indicates in the petition, signed and dated November 28, 2011, that he is awaiting trial.

5

(Pet. at 2.)

6

This Court has authority to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a

7

person in custody, but not yet convicted or sentenced. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336

8

F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Application of Floyd, 413 F. Supp. 574, 576 (D.

9

Nev. 1976). Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a petition brought under
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), principles of federalism and comity require that this court

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

abstain and not entertain a pretrial habeas challenge unless the petitioner shows that:

12

1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and 2) “special circumstances”

13

warrant federal intervention. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th

14

Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-

15

54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971) (under principles of comity

16

and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

17

proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary

18

circumstances). Special circumstances that might warrant federal habeas intervention

19

before trial include proven harassment, bad faith prosecutions and other extraordinary

20

circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84

21

(violation of Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial not alone an extraordinary

22

circumstance).

23

Petitioner has failed to show that special circumstances warrant federal

24

intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is completed. Accordingly, this

25

Court will abstain and DISMISS the petition without prejudice. Petitioner’s alleged

26

constitutional violations are matters that can and should be addressed in the first

27

instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before he seeks a

28

federal writ of habeas corpus.
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\06235Young_dism (abst).wpd

2

1

Petitioner is advised that he should not file a new federal petition for a writ of

2

habeas corpus unless and until he gets convicted, and then not until his direct appeal

3

and state habeas proceedings have concluded and he has given the state’s high court a

4

fair opportunity to rule on each of his claims.

5

CONCLUSION

6
7

The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to Petitioner’s returning

8

to federal court after the conclusion of state proceedings and exhausting his state court

9

remedies.
This order terminates Docket No. 4.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

DATED:

6/27/2012

EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Order of Dismissal
G:\PRO-SE\SJ.EJD\HC.11\06235Young_dism (abst).wpd

3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN YOUNG,

Case Number: CV11-06235 EJD

Petitioner,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

v.
ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
Respondent.

/

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
6/27/2012
That on
, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the
attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into
an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Brian Young BBT 898
Santa Rita County Jail
5325 Broder Blvd.,
Dublin, CA 94568
Dated:

6/27/2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
/s/ By: Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk