Bettys v. Strong

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; petitioner's petition is dismissed with prejudice by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS)cc petitioner

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 JOHN EDWARD BETTYS, Petitioner, 9 10 11 12 Case No. C16-449-RSM v. ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS ACTION MARK STRONG, Respondent. 13 This is a federal habeas action brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dkt. #16 at 1 n.1. 14 Petitioner John Edward Bettys seeks to challenge his 2013 Skagit County Superior Court 15 conviction and sentence. In his Objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of 16 James P. Donohue, Chief United States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner argues that the R&R failed 17 to properly analyze the law surrounding Petitioner’s 2005 judgment and sentence and subsequent 18 actions of the trial court in 2013. Dkt. #17 at 5. Petitioner argues that the R&R “ignores the 19 constitutional violations committed by the Trial Court in this direct criminal appeal action, 20 without reasonable justifications for Federal Court’s (sic) failure to provide justice to petitioner.” 21 Id. at 7. Petitioner goes on to argue that “[a]lthough it is apparent that petitioner will be given 22 his day in court regarding these constitutional violation claims… under a Federal Writ of Habeas 23 Corpus at some point after he is under the civil judgment in the Sexual Violent Predator act ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS ACTION - 1 1 petition, this does nothing for the years that he is being subjected to the present illegal pre-trial 2 confinement awaiting that civil judgment…” Id. Petitioner argues that his situation constitutes 3 “an extraordinary circumstance… that does warrant the action of this Court at present.” Id. at 4 10. Petitioner cites to no legal authority for this conclusion. Petitioner argues that he could 5 bring a §1983 action against the involved attorneys and Trial Court and requests the Court 6 convert this habeas action into a §1983 action. Id. 7 The Court has reviewed Petitioner’s Objections and finds that Petitioner does not 8 demonstrate factual mistake or legal error in the R&R. A writ of habeas corpus may issue only 9 upon a finding that a prisoner is ‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of 10 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The R&R makes clear 11 that the Petitioner is not in custody under cited cases. Dkt. #16 at 4-6. This is a proper basis to 12 deny the petition. Further, the Court agrees with the R&R that “[t]o the extent petitioner’s 13 federal habeas petition might be construed as presenting a direct challenge to the lawfulness of 14 petitioner’s current confinement, the petition is premature.” Id. at 6. Petitioner appears to accept 15 this legal conclusion. The Court finds that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate extraordinary 16 circumstances under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). See id. The Court declines 17 Petitioner’s request to convert this case into a §1983 action. 18 The Court, having reviewed Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, Respondent’s 19 answer to the petition, the Report and Recommendations of James P. Donohue, Chief United 20 States Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s Objections, and the remaining record, hereby finds and 21 ORDERS: 22 (1) The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation. 23 ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS ACTION - 2 1 2 3 4 (2) Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 1), and this action, are DISMISSED with prejudice. (3) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to petitioner, to counsel for respondent, and to the Honorable James P. Donohue. 5 6 7 8 9 DATED this 12th day of October 2016. A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DISMISSING FEDERAL HABEAS ACTION - 3

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?