Hardison v. Carmicheal et al

Filing 6

ORDERED : 1. Petitioner Casey William Hardison's petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF Nos. 1 -1, 1 -2, 1 -3) is dismissed without prejudice. 2. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason would not fin d the Court's dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong.3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 10/24/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 CASEY WILLIAM HARDISON, 6 v. 7 Case No. 3:24-cv-00415-ART-CLB Petitioner, ORDER NATHAN CARMICHAEL, 8 Respondents. 9 10 Pro se Petitioner Casey William Hardison commenced this habeas action by 11 filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3) under 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2241 challenging a bench warrant issued by a state district court of Wyoming. 13 This habeas matter is before the Court for initial review under the Rules 14 Governing Section 2254 Cases.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court 15 dismisses the § 2241 petition without prejudice. 16 Background 17 Hardison was convicted of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance 18 under a Wyoming statute. ECF No. 1-3. Hardison asserts that he has been 19 convicted but is awaiting sentencing. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The Wyoming state 20 district court ordered Hardison to appear for a hearing on his motion to reduce 21 or modify sentence in June 2022. ECF No. 1-3. Because Hardison failed to 22 appear, the Wyoming state district court issued a bench warrant. Id. 23 Hardison argues that the bench warrant is attempting to enforce a 24 Wyoming state law that is facially invalid under the Wyoming state constitution 25 and violates Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States 26 27 28 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 1 1 1 Constitution. ECF No. 1-1 at 5. It is unclear whether Hardison is requesting that 2 this Court quash the bench warrant or if he is challenging his Wyoming state 3 conviction. Discussion 4 5 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas 6 petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 7 entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). 8 This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, 9 vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. 10 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 11 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 12 Hardison’s petition is subject to multiple defects. To state a claim a habeas 13 petitioner must demonstrate that he is entitled to release from confinement 14 because he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the 15 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c). First, to the extent that Hardison is 16 challenging his Wyoming state court conviction, he must file a habeas petition 17 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Section 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition 18 by a state prisoner who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 19 for instance a pre-trial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner 20 whose conviction has been reversed on appeal. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 21 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). 22 Second, to the extent Hardison is requesting that this Court quash the 23 bench warrant issued by the Wyoming state district court, the petition improperly 24 seeks federal judicial intervention in a pending state criminal proceeding. The 25 Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from enjoining pending state 26 court criminal proceedings, even if there is an allegation of a constitutional 27 violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that creates a threat of 28 irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). The United 2 1 States Supreme Court has instructed that “federal-court abstention is required” 2 when there is “a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc’ns, 3 Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) (emphasis added); Gilbertson v. Albright, 4 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally abstain from granting any 5 relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings). Irreparable 6 injury does not exist if the threat to a petitioner’s federally protected rights may 7 be eliminated through his or her defense of the criminal case. Younger, 401 U.S. 8 at 46. 9 Third, Hardison has not alleged or demonstrated that he properly and fully 10 exhausted his state court remedies. A state defendant seeking federal habeas 11 relief must fully exhaust his state court remedies before presenting his 12 constitutional claims to the federal courts. E.g., Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 13 763, 764–67 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that California petitioner properly exhausted 14 his state remedies by filing two motions in the trial court, a habeas petition in 15 the court of appeal, and a habeas petition in the state supreme court). The 16 exhaustion requirement ensures that state courts, as a matter of federal-state 17 comity, will have the first opportunity to review and correct alleged violations of 18 federal constitutional guarantees. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 19 (1991). As a general rule, a federal court will not entertain a petition seeking 20 intervention in an ongoing state criminal proceeding absent extraordinary 21 circumstances, even when a petitioner’s claims were otherwise fully exhausted in 22 the state courts. E.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); 23 Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–85 (9th Cir. 1980). 24 No extraordinary circumstances are presented here. To the extent, 25 Hardison is challenging the bench warrant, abstention is required. To the extent 26 that Hardison is challenging his Wyoming state convictions, Hardison must file a 27 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Further, Hardison has failed to exhaust his state 28 court remedies. 3 Conclusion 1 2 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED: 3 1. Petitioner Casey William Hardison’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 4 (ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3) is dismissed without prejudice. 5 2. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason 6 would not find the Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or 7 wrong. 8 9 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED THIS 24th day of October, 2024. 11 12 13 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?