Brown v. State of Nevada

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 Jessica Michelle Brown, Case No. 2:23-cv-00183-CDS-EJY

5 Plaintiff Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Granting Application to v. 6 Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Denying

Motion to Extend, and Closing Case 7 State of Nevada, et al., [ECF Nos. 1-1, 7, 8] 8 Defendants

9 10 This pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1-1) comes 11 before me for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Petitioner Jessica 12 Michelle Brown also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 7) and 13 motion to extend time. ECF No. 8. 14 I. IFP Application 15 I considered petitioner’s IFP application along with the attached financial documents 16 and conclude that she cannot pay the $5.00 filing fee. The IFP application will therefore be 17 granted. 18 II. Discussion 19 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas petition and 20 order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 21 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss 22 petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by 23 procedural defects. Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 24 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 25 Petitioner appears to be a pretrial detainee and refers to multiple criminal proceedings in 26 her allegations. See ECF No. 1-1 at 2. Her allegations largely refer to the facts of an underlying 27 criminal charge, police conduct, and petitioner requests that the court drop her charges. Id. at 8. 28 The petition is subject to multiple substantial defects. 2 criminal proceeding. The Younger abstention doctrine prevents federal courts from enjoining 3 pending state court criminal proceedings, even if there is an allegation of a constitutional 4 violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that creates a threat of irreparable 5 injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). The United States Supreme Court has 6 instructed that “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, pending state 7 criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) (emphasis added); 8 Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally abstain from granting 9 any relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings). Irreparable injury does 10 not exist if the threat to a petitioner’s federally protected rights may be eliminated through his 11 or her defense of the criminal case. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. 12 Second, petitioner has not alleged or demonstrated that she properly and fully exhausted 13 her state court remedies. A state defendant seeking federal habeas relief to restrain ongoing state 14 criminal proceedings must fully exhaust her state court remedies before presenting her 15 constitutional claims to the federal courts. E.g., Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 764–67 (9th Cir. 16 2018) (finding that California petitioner properly exhausted his state remedies by filing two 17 motions in the trial court, a habeas petition in the court of appeal, and a habeas petition in the 18 state supreme court). The exhaustion requirement ensures that state courts, as a matter of 19 federal-state comity, will have the first opportunity to review and correct alleged violations of 20 federal constitutional guarantees. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). As a general rule, a 21 federal court will not entertain a petition seeking intervention in an ongoing state criminal 22 proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances, even when a petitioner’s claims were otherwise 23 fully exhausted in the state courts. E.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); 24 Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–85 (9th Cir. 1980). 25 No extraordinary circumstances are presented here. Petitioner is challenging the 26 constitutionality of the charges pending before the state court. Defendants in state criminal 27 proceedings routinely allege that state charges violate their constitutional rights, including 28 fundamental rights, which makes this a regular occurrence, not an extraordinary circumstance. 2 her federally protected rights. For these reasons, abstention is required. 3 Given the multiple substantial defects presented, this matter will be dismissed without 4 prejudice. Dismissal of this action without prejudice will not materially impact the analysis of 5 any issue in a later filed habeas proceeding, or otherwise result in substantial prejudice. 6 III. Conclusion 7 It is therefore ordered that petitioner Jessica Michelle Brown’s petition for writ of habeas 8 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as jurists of reason would 10 not find dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 11 It is further ordered that petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 7] 12 is GRANTED. 13 It is further ordered that petitioner’s motion to extend [ECF No. 8] is DENIED as moot. 14 It is further ordered that under to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the 15 Clerk of Court is directed to add Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for 16 respondents and informally serve the Nevada Attorney General by directing a notice of 17 electronic filing of this order to his office. No response is required from respondents other than 18 to respond to any orders of a reviewing court. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case and ENTER final 20 judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. 21 DATED: June 1, 2023

23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28