Bridges v. Justice Court of Reno Township

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: November 15, 2022
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00503
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ALI BRIDGES, Case No. 3:22-cv-00503-ART-CLB 5 Petitioner, ORDER 6 v.

7 JUSTICE COURT OF RENO TOWNSHIP, et al., 8 Respondents. 9

10 11 This case is a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus by Ali Bridges, 12 who, according to his petition, is in custody in Washoe County, and who is 13 apparently contesting extradition to California. Bridges appears to claim that the 14 Nevada courts have violated his federal constitutional rights in seeking to 15 extradite him, and he seeks an order of this Court staying his extradition. The 16 Court construes Bridges’ habeas petition as one pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 17 However, Bridges’ federal habeas petition is faulty for several reasons, and it will 18 be summarily dismissed, without prejudice. 19 First, Bridges has not paid the $5 filing fee for this action, and he has not 20 applied to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 Second, Bridges’ petition is not on a form provided by this court. The effect 22 of this is that Bridges’ petition fails to provide the Court with information 23 necessary for the Court to proceed with this action. 24 Third, it is plain from the information that Bridges does provide that he has 25 not exhausted his claims in state court. Generally, a petitioner must exhaust 26 available state court remedies before filing a petition under section 2241. See 27 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 490-491 (1973); 28 Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2004). Although 28 U.S.C. § 2241 1 || does not specifically require exhaustion, “[a]ls an exercise of judicial restraint ... 2 || federal courts elect not to entertain habeas corpus challenges to state court 3 || proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state avenues for raising [a] 4 || federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980); see also 5 || Castro-Cortez v. LN.S., 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other 6 || grounds, Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006) (Courts “require, as 7 || a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust available judicial and 8 || administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.”). Bridges makes 9 || mention in his habeas petition of extradition proceedings before a Reno justice 10 || court but makes no mention of any attempt to seek relief from any higher state 11 || court, whether a state district court, the Nevada Court of Appeals, or the Nevada 12 |} Supreme Court. Moreover, Bridges makes no claim that there is no avenue for 13 || him to seek such relief. 14 It is therefore ordered that this action is dismissed, without prejudice. 15 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter 16 || judgment accordingly and close this case. 17 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send to the 18 || petitioner two copies of the form for a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 19 || to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and two copies of the form for an application by a prisoner 20 || to proceed in forma pauperis. 21 22 DATED THIS 15t# day of November, 2022. 23 en 24 Aree / 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28