Navedo v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry)Signed by Honorable James M. Munley on 9/19/17. (sm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELISEO NAVEDO,
:
:
Petitioner :
:
v.
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF
:
PENNSYLVANIA,
:
:
Respondent :
CIVIL NO. 3:17-cv-1648
(Judge Munley)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
MEMORANDUM
On September 13, 2017, Petitioner Eliseo Navedo (“Petitioner”), a pre-trial
detainee presently confined at the Dauphin County Prison, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,
initiated the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1). Preliminary consideration of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, reveals that the
petition is subject to summary dismissal because there are ongoing state court criminal
proceedings.1
1
Rule 4, which governs preliminary review of petitions, states that “[i]f it plainly appears from the
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge
must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” A petition may be dismissed
without review of an answer when the petition is frivolous, or obviously lacking in merit, or where . . . the
necessary facts can be determined from the petition itself. . . . ” Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th
Cir. 1970).
I.
Background
Petitioner alleges that he was arrested on August 28, 2015 in “Dauphin County
[matter] 1401-2016.” (Doc. 1, ¶ 1). A preliminary hearing was held in March 2016, and
he was arraigned in April 2016. (Id. at 2, 3, p. 4). He has appeared in state court on
multiple occasions since that time. (Id. at ¶¶ 6,7). According to the electronic docket in
Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County Criminal Case Number CP-22-CR0001401-2016, retrieved from Pennsylvania’s Unified Judicial System,
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us., he has moved to continue his trial on multiple occasions.
Currently, the trial is scheduled to commence on October 23, 2017.
“Petitioner moves for Habeas Corpus as he has been in the Custody of the
Dauphin County Officials for over 2 years without going to Trial through no fault of his
own as it is the Prosecution who has not been ready and has violated his rights to a
Speedy Trial as afforded him by P.R.C.P. 600 and entitles Petitioner to the relief
requested.” (Doc. 1, p. 2).
II.
Discussion
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, a person in state custody may file an application for
a writ of habeas corpus challenging the fact or length of his or her confinement. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973); Tedford v. Hepting, 990 F.2d 745, 748
(3d Cir. 1993). However, this section specifically provides that the person must be in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). It is
apparent from the instant petition that Petitioner has not yet been tried or convicted on the
2
criminal charges he faces in Dauphin County, and, thus, he is not yet in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a state court.
Notwithstanding this deficiency, generally, federal courts must adjudicate all cases
and controversies that are properly before them. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council
of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358 (1989). Abstention, however, “is the
judicially created doctrine under which a federal court will decline to exercise its
jurisdiction so that a state court or state agency will have the opportunity to decide the
matters at issue.” Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp., 671 F.2d 743, 746 (3d Cir.
1982). In Younger v. Harris, the United States Supreme Court “established a principle of
abstention when federal adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal
proceeding.” Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 202 (3d Cir. 2005) (discussing Younger, 401
U.S. 37 (1971)). The Younger Court based its decision on the principles of comity and
“the longstanding public policy against federal court interference with state court
proceedings.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 43. Younger abstention applies when the following
three requirements are met: “(1) there are ongoing state proceedings that are judicial in
nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state
proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims.” Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666, 670 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp.
of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir. 2005)).
Notably, even when all requirements are met, abstention is not appropriate when
the following extraordinary circumstances exist: “(1) the state proceedings are being
3
undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other extraordinary
circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant to a flagrantly unconstitutional statute.
. . .” Schall v. Jovce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir. 1989). These exceptions are to be
narrowly construed. Loftus v. Twp. of Lawrence Park, 764 F. Supp. 354, 357 (W.D. Pa.
1991).
It is evident from the electronic docket and the petition that Petitioner is in
ongoing criminal proceedings which implicate important state interests in that he is
awaiting trial on pending criminal charges. (Doc. 1, pp. 1-4; Common Pleas of Dauphin
County Criminal Case Number CP-22-CR-0001401-2016, http://ujsportal.pacourts.us.).
Moreover, his trial is scheduled for October 23, 2017, which indicates that the state court
process is available to him. Because there is relief available at the state court level, there
is an absence of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant the intervention of a
federal court on this issue. Thus, out of deference to the state judicial process, it is
appropriate to abstain from entertaining the petition. Indeed, “[i]n no area of the law is
the need for a federal court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings more
evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.” Evans v. Court of Common
Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir. 1992).
III.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the petition for writ of habeas corpus will be
dismissed.
4
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability (“COA”), an appeal may not be taken from a final order in a
proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A
petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree
with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could
conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). “When the district court denies a habeas
petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional
claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional
right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here,
jurists of reason would not find the procedural disposition of this case debatable.
Accordingly, there is no basis for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
The denial of a certificate of appealability does not prevent Petitioner from
appealing the order dismissing his petition so long as he seeks, and obtains, a certificate
of appealability from the court of appeals. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b)(1), (2).
5
A separate Order will enter.
BY THE COURT:
s/James M. Munley_
JUDGE JAMES M. MUNLEY
United States District Court
Dated: September 19, 2017
6
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?