Darnell J. Taylor v. Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-07744
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 DARNELL J. TAYLOR, Case No. 25-cv-07744-JD

6 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 7 Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 4 8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 9 Respondent.

10 11 Darnell J. Taylor (“Petitioner”) has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 12 Petitioner has also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 2, 4. 13 DISCUSSION 14 STANDARD OF REVIEW 15 The Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by a person in custody 16 only on the ground that the custody violates the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 17 States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (custody pursuant to state court judgment). 18 Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 19 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is 20 in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief 21 available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules 22 Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the petition 23 is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory 24 Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir. 1970)). 25 PETITION 26 Petitioner says he was charged with robbery but declared incompetent on August 5, 2025 27 during state court proceedings in Contra Costa County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2. 1 California. Dkt. No. 4. Petitioner lists the following grounds for relief. Petitioner is being 2 unlawfully confined and has been falsely found to be incompetent to facilitate California state 3 employees’ mismanagement and attempted theft of his federally authorized payments that would 4 render him a trillionaire if disbursed. Vallejo Police Department officer Komoda attempted to 5 steal Petitioner’s federally authorized FEMA payments by depositing the payments into an 6 account tied to Petitioner’s unfiled EIN number instead of Petitioner’s social security number, 7 which has the result of denying Petitioner access to these payments. Without these payments, 8 Petitioner cannot pay for bail. Petitioner refused to take a plea deal so he was declared 9 incompetent. Petitioner’s public defender has not acted in Petitioner’s best interests. See 10 generally Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner reports that he has not appealed the incompetency finding in state 11 court or otherwise sought relief in the state courts regarding his allegedly unlawful or 12 unconstitutional state custody. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. 13 DISMISSAL 14 The petition is dismissed. Even when read generously for a pro se litigant, Petitioner has 15 not alleged that his custody violates either the federal Constitution or law or treaties of the United 16 States. Petitioner’s belief that Officer Komoda wanted to steal his federal payments is not 17 plausibly alleged. 18 There is also a Younger abstention issue. As a general proposition, a federal court will not 19 intervene in a pending state criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances involving 20 great and immediate danger of irreparable harm or absent a showing of the state’s “bad faith, 21 harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief.” See Younger 22 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is ‘an 23 ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) 24 there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and 25 (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing 26 state judicial proceeding. Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023); see also 27 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 1 Here, all four criteria for Younger abstention are satisfied. The underlying criminal 2 || proceedings are pending. The state has an important interest in administering their criminal justice 3 systems free from federal interference. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“This 4 || Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free 5 from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a 6 || court considering equitable types of relief.”). Petitioner can raise constitutional challenges to the 7 || incompetency finding in the state courts. The relief requested is that this Court take the place of 8 || the state trial court in determining Petitioner’s competency. 9 As a closing observation, it is unclear whether Petitioner is seeking federal habeas relief 10 || pursuant to Section 2254, which requires that his custody be pursuant to a state court judgment, or 11 Section 2241. To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to Section 2254, Petitioner must 12 || first exhaust his state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (before petitioner may bring 5 13 Section 2254 petition to challenge fact of confinement, petitioner must first exhaust state judicial 14 remedies); see also Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). Petitioner has stated in his 3 15 petition that he has not challenged the legality of his custody in the state court. Dkt. No. | at 2-3. 16 CONCLUSION 3 17 The Court grants Petitioner’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis Dkt. Nos. 2, 4; and 18 dismisses this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The Court denies a certificate of appealability, 19 || as Petitioner has not demonstrated “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 20 || petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would 21 find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. 22 || McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: October 17, 2025 25 6 JAMES D@NATO United States District Judge 27 28