Snedden v. Strange

Filing 36

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE. The Petition, ECF No. 1 , is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Denying 33 Motion to Admit Amendment to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpu s; Denying 34 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in a Joint Civil Rights Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Denying as moot 35 Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court to Hear a Motion for Summary Judgement [sic] on a Claim for Declaratory R elief. The court shall file the Civil Rights Complaint, ECF No. 34 -1, in a separate case as of the date that it was received. The court further certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c);Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). This file is CLOSED. Signed by Senior Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (CLP, Case Administrator) (Service of Notice on parties not registered as users of the Court CM/ECF system accomplished via USPS mail.)

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.329 Page 1 of 8

1
2

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

3

Jan 10, 2022

4

SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6
7

STEVEN SNEDDEN,

8
9
10

Petitioner,
v.
CHERYL STRANGE,
Respondent.

11

NO: 2:21-CV-0286-RMP
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS
CORPUS PETITION, DENYING
MOTIONS AND DIRECTING THE
OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL
RIGHTS CASE

12
13

On November 30, 2021, the Court directed Petitioner Steven Snedden to show

14

cause why his Habeas Corpus Petition should not be dismissed based on the

15

abstention principles of Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971). ECF No. 30 at

16

7–10. At that time, Petitioner was a prisoner at the Coyote Ridge Corrections

17

Center. He is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Respondent Cheryl Strange

18

has not been served.

19

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

20

On January 5, 2022, the Court received a series of documents from Mr.

21

Snedden, indicating that he is now confined at Spokane County Detention Services.
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 1

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.330 Page 2 of 8

1

The Court construes his letter dated December 29, 2021, as a Notice of Change of

2

Address. ECF No. 31. Because Mr. Snedden states that he deposited his documents

3

for mailing on December 29, 2021, id., the Court will consider his response titled,

4

“Reply to Court’s Order: Motion for Joinder of Claims and for Summary Judgment

5

on Declaratory Relief Claim,” ECF No. 32, to be timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487

6

U.S. 266 (1988).

7

After careful review of this response and the accompanying motions, ECF

8

Nos. 32–34, the Court finds that Mr. Snedden has failed to show cause why this

9

habeas corpus petition should not be dismissed as precluded by Younger. Contrary

10

to his assertions, Petitioner did not “cure the exhaustion deficiency” and he has

11

failed to present any facts warranting this Court’s intervention in pending criminal

12

proceedings. ECF No. 32 at 1.

13

The “Motion to Admit Amendment to Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

14

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,” ECF No. 33, is reiterates his prior assertions that his

15

initial term of community custody was unlawfully imposed, only brought against the

16

Superintendent of the Coyote Ridge Corrections Center, Melisa Andrewjeski.

17

Petitioner attached a copy of this Court’s November 30, 2021, Order. ECF No. 33-1.

18

In the future, Petitioner may refer the Court any documents in the record, instead of

19

refiling them.

20

In his Reply, Petitioner asks to “join” a civil rights complaint into these

21

habeas proceedings in an apparent attempt to avoid the exhaustion requirement. See
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 2

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.331 Page 3 of 8

1

ECF No. 32 at 2. For reasons set forth later in this Order, the Court will not permit

2

Petitioner to incorporate a civil rights complaint into these proceedings. As for

3

exhaustion, the Court notes that since 1996, prisoners have been required to exhaust

4

available administrative remedies before bringing a civil rights action pursuant to 42

5

U.S.C. § 1983. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a); Vaden v. Summerhill, 449 F.3d 1047,

6

1050 (9th Cir. 2006); Brown v. Valoff, 422 F.3d 926, 934–35 (9th Cir. 2005).

7

In his Reply, Plaintiff argues that the indecent exposure statute, under which

8

he was convicted, violates his civil rights. ECF No. 32 at 3. He claims the statute is

9

“overbroad where it invades an area of his protected freedoms.” Id. He claims that

10

he has “a First Amendment Right to dance in the nude, demonstrate politically in the

11

nude, and to be nude for scientific purposes.” Id. The court notes that this is a

12

departure from the claims asserted in the habeas petition. ECF No. 1. Petitioner

13

may challenge the constitutionality of a state criminal statute in appropriate state

14

appellate proceedings, and, once he has exhausted those remedies, he may apply for

15

federal habeas relief. At this time, however, these newly asserted claims also are

16

unexhausted. Petitioner’s request for “summary judgment on an action for

17

declaratory judgment,” ECF No. 32 at 4 of 6, must be denied.

18

As previously advised, federal courts generally will not intervene in a pending

19

state court criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger

20

of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. ECF No. 30 at 7; see Younger, 401

21

U.S. at 41. “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 3

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.332 Page 4 of 8

1

federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes

2

in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”

3

Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. l972); see also Carden v. Montana,

4

626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir. 1980). Plaintiff has failed to show that his criminal

5

cases have fully concluded in the state court.

6

In Younger, the Supreme Court held that principles of federalism, comity, and

7

equity require federal courts to abstain from enjoining ongoing state court criminal

8

proceedings, except in specific, very narrow circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 45

9

(“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending [state

10

criminal] proceedings . . . in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”). Younger

11

abstention is appropriate when (1) there is “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”;

12

(2) the proceeding “implicate[s] important state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate

13

opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges”; and (4) the

14

requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the practical effect of enjoining” the

15

ongoing state judicial proceeding. ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins.

16

Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014).

17

As stated previously, Petitioner has the opportunity and means to challenge

18

the fairness of his final judgment and sentence, including any constitutional

19

challenge to the statute under which he was convicted, in the state appellate system,

20

and then, if necessary, through subsequent state and federal habeas corpus

21

proceedings. He has presented no factual allegations of proven harassment or
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 4

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.333 Page 5 of 8

1

prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a

2

valid conviction or other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can

3

be shown that would justify federal injunctive relief against pending state

4

prosecutions. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).

5

Having failed to assert facts sufficient to show that he is entitled to federal

6

intervention at this time, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to the habeas

7

relief he seeks. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

8
9

MOTION/CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
Mr. Snedden asks the Court to allow him to proceed in forma pauperis in a

10

“joint civil rights claim.” ECF No. 34. The Court will not permit Mr. Snedden to do

11

so. Civil rights complaints and habeas corpus petitions are distinct civil proceedings

12

with different standards and obligations for proceeding in forma pauperis.

13

The fee for filing a habeas corpus action is $5.00, see 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and

14

is waived completely when in forma pauperis status is granted. In contrast, the

15

filing fee for a civil rights complaint is $402.00 and only the $52.00 administrative

16

fee is waived when in forma pauperis status is granted, leaving the prisoner plaintiff

17

with the obligation of paying the $350.00 in incremental payments until it is paid in

18

full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b). Furthermore, because the remedies available in

19

habeas corpus and civil rights actions are different (e.g., release and damages) a

20

litigant must proceed separately in each type of case. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541

21

U.S. 637, 646 (2004) (“damages are not an available habeas remedy”).
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 5

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

1

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.334 Page 6 of 8

If a state prisoner challenges the fact or duration of his confinement or seeks a

2

determination that he is entitled to release or a shortening of his period of

3

confinement, his only federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus, with its requirement

4

of exhaustion of state remedies. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 487–90

5

(1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 481 (1994). A section 1983 claim is not

6

the appropriate vehicle for a prisoner to challenge his underlying state conviction

7

and sentence by seeking injunctive relief. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. at 489 (“a

8

state prisoner challenging his underlying conviction and sentence on federal

9

constitutional grounds in a federal court is limited to habeas corpus

10

. . . he cannot bring a § 1983 action, even though the literal terms of § 1983 might

11

seem to cover such a challenge”). Therefore, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in

12

forma pauperis in a Joint Civil Rights Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF No. 34,

13

will be denied.

14

Among the documents filed on January 5, 2022, is a Civil Rights Complaint

15

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, bearing the case number of this habeas proceeding. ECF

16

No. 34-1. Because Mr. Snedden may not proceed with two different types of cases

17

in a single action, and because of the pending disposition of this habeas proceeding,

18

the Court will direct the District Court Clerk to file the Civil Rights Complaint as a

19

separate action and provide Petitioner with the documents and instructions necessary

20

to file a civil rights action in forma pauperis. Should Petitioner comply with the

21
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 6

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.335 Page 7 of 8

1

filing fee or in forma pauperis requirements, the complaint in the new action will be

2

subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

3

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED:

4

1.

5

to Petitioner pursuing appropriate state appellate and federal habeas relief,

6

after state court remedies have been exhausted.

7

2.

8

Corpus, ECF No. 33, and the Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in a Joint

9

Civil Rights Claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, ECF No. 34, are DENIED.

The Petition, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

The Motion to Admit Amendment to Petition for Writ of Habeas

10

3.

11

an action for declaratory judgment,” ECF No. 32 at 4 of 6, must be denied for

12

the reasons set forth above, the Court correspondingly DENIES AS MOOT

13

Petitioner’s “Motion to Convene a Three-Judge Court to Hear a Motion for

14

Summary Judgement [sic] on a Claim for Declaratory Relief,” ECF No. 35,

15

filed on January 10, 2022.

16

4.

17

34-1, in a separate case as of the date that it was received.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is DIRECTED to enter

19

As the Court finds that Petitioner’s request for “summary judgment on

The District Court Clerk shall file the Civil Rights Complaint, ECF No.

this Order, enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner and CLOSE the file.

20
21
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 7

Case 2:21-cv-00286-RMP

ECF No. 36

filed 01/10/22

PageID.336 Page 8 of 8

1

The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good

2

faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28

3

U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b).

4
5
6

DATED January 10, 2022.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
Senior United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS CORPUS PETITION, DENYING MOTIONS
AND DIRECTING THE OPENING OF A SEPARATE CIVIL RIGHTS CASE -- 8