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)
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?