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

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