1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 vs. DENYING MOTION FOR SPEEDY 14 HOWARD AUSBURY, et al. TRIAL, APPOINTMENT OF 15 Defendants. COUNSEL, AND OBJECTION TO STAY; AND 16
17 [Doc. No. 89]
18 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 19 UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS
20 21 Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has brought this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ausbury, Bravo, 23 Gene, Ugalde, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 24 previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of six months pending the 25 outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 68; see also S.D. 26 Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court agreed and extended the stay through February 16, 27 2024. See Doc. No. 69. 28 1 Defendants filed a Status Report on February 6, 2024 advising the Court that a 2 further stay was warranted due to continued litigation in Plaintiff’s pending criminal 3 proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s competency. See Doc. No. 82. The 4 Court concluded in an Order filed on February 13, 2024 that a further stay of this action 5 was appropriate and stayed this action through August 16, 2024. See Doc. No. 83. 6 Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Lift Stay and a Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed, which the 7 Court construed as Motions for Reconsideration of the Order Extending Stay. See Doc. 8 Nos. 84, 86. On February 21, 2024, the Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration. 9 Doc. No. 88. Plaintiff has now filed a document entitled “Motion for Speedy Trial, 10 Appointment of Counsel, Objection to Stay Order.” See Doc. No. 89 12 Although it is difficult to discern exactly what relief Plaintiff seeks, it appears that 13 Plaintiff claims the State of California is violating his speedy trial rights in San Diego 14 Superior Court case no. SCS287189. Doc. No. 89 at 4. Specifically, he contends that 15 repeated findings that he is incompetent to stand trial have improperly delayed his trial. 16 Id. at 2–4. 17 In this case, Plaintiff is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his 18 prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody, and thus he has brought the current 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 20 475, 488–500 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). A claim 21 regarding Plaintiff’s speedy trial rights, however, cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983 22 and must instead be brought via either a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for prisoners in state 23 custody pursuant to a state court conviction, or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a pre-trial 24 detainee. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935; White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 25 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Section 2254 is properly understood as ‘in effect 26 implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as 27 the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 28 for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 1 other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.”), overruled on other 2 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, he cannot 3 proceed with a speedy trial claim in this matter. 4 Further, this Court would be barred from consideration of this claim in a § 2254 or 5 § 2241 petition by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 6 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal 7 proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex County 8 Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger 9 “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 10 judicial proceedings.”) Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is 11 required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings 12 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate 13 opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 14 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner’s criminal case is still 16 ongoing in the state courts. See Doc. No. 82-1. Further, there is no question that the state 17 criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Finally, Petitioner has failed to 18 show that he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issues on 19 direct appeal. Indeed, Plaintiff is currently challenging the most recent competency 20 finding in the California Court of Appeal. Id. at 2; see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 21 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings as well as ongoing 22 proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 23 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal 24 interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 25 judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”) 26 Plaintiff also asks for to counsel to be appointed to represent him. Doc. No. 89 at 27 4–5. Plaintiff is represented by the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office in his 28 criminal case in state court and is represented by attorney Laura Arnold on appeal of the 1 state court’s 2022 finding of incompetency. See Doc. No. 82-1; see also 2 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=41&do 3 c_id=2499978&doc_no=D081586&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw8WyBFSCM9SE9IID 4 w6UkxbKyJOUzJSUCAgCg%3D%3D (last visited on March 13, 2024). As to 5 appointment of counsel in the present case, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 6 civil case. Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound 7 discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 8 v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 9 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that only “exceptional circumstances” support 10 such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional circumstances exist where there is 11 cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability of the 12 pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 13 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff sufficiently articulated the facts and 14 circumstances relevant to his claims in his Amended Complaint to pass the screening 15 stage, see Doc. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 WILLIAM DAWES, Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 vs. DENYING MOTION FOR SPEEDY 14 HOWARD AUSBURY, et al. TRIAL, APPOINTMENT OF 15 Defendants. COUNSEL, AND OBJECTION TO STAY; AND 16
17 [Doc. No. 89]
18 DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 19 UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS
20 21 Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has brought this 22 civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ausbury, Bravo, 23 Gene, Ugalde, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 24 previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of six months pending the 25 outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 68; see also S.D. 26 Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court agreed and extended the stay through February 16, 27 2024. See Doc. No. 69. 28 1 Defendants filed a Status Report on February 6, 2024 advising the Court that a 2 further stay was warranted due to continued litigation in Plaintiff’s pending criminal 3 proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s competency. See Doc. No. 82. The 4 Court concluded in an Order filed on February 13, 2024 that a further stay of this action 5 was appropriate and stayed this action through August 16, 2024. See Doc. No. 83. 6 Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Lift Stay and a Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed, which the 7 Court construed as Motions for Reconsideration of the Order Extending Stay. See Doc. 8 Nos. 84, 86. On February 21, 2024, the Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration. 9 Doc. No. 88. Plaintiff has now filed a document entitled “Motion for Speedy Trial, 10 Appointment of Counsel, Objection to Stay Order.” See Doc. No. 89 12 Although it is difficult to discern exactly what relief Plaintiff seeks, it appears that 13 Plaintiff claims the State of California is violating his speedy trial rights in San Diego 14 Superior Court case no. SCS287189. Doc. No. 89 at 4. Specifically, he contends that 15 repeated findings that he is incompetent to stand trial have improperly delayed his trial. 16 Id. at 2–4. 17 In this case, Plaintiff is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his 18 prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody, and thus he has brought the current 19 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 20 475, 488–500 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). A claim 21 regarding Plaintiff’s speedy trial rights, however, cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983 22 and must instead be brought via either a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for prisoners in state 23 custody pursuant to a state court conviction, or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a pre-trial 24 detainee. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935; White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 25 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Section 2254 is properly understood as ‘in effect 26 implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as 27 the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 28 for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 1 other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.”), overruled on other 2 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, he cannot 3 proceed with a speedy trial claim in this matter. 4 Further, this Court would be barred from consideration of this claim in a § 2254 or 5 § 2241 petition by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 6 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal 7 proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex County 8 Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger 9 “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 10 judicial proceedings.”) Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is 11 required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings 12 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate 13 opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 14 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner’s criminal case is still 16 ongoing in the state courts. See Doc. No. 82-1. Further, there is no question that the state 17 criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Finally, Petitioner has failed to 18 show that he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issues on 19 direct appeal. Indeed, Plaintiff is currently challenging the most recent competency 20 finding in the California Court of Appeal. Id. at 2; see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 21 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings as well as ongoing 22 proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 23 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal 24 interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 25 judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”) 26 Plaintiff also asks for to counsel to be appointed to represent him. Doc. No. 89 at 27 4–5. Plaintiff is represented by the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office in his 28 criminal case in state court and is represented by attorney Laura Arnold on appeal of the 1 state court’s 2022 finding of incompetency. See Doc. No. 82-1; see also 2 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=41&do 3 c_id=2499978&doc_no=D081586&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw8WyBFSCM9SE9IID 4 w6UkxbKyJOUzJSUCAgCg%3D%3D (last visited on March 13, 2024). As to 5 appointment of counsel in the present case, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 6 civil case. Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound 7 discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 8 v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 9 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that only “exceptional circumstances” support 10 such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional circumstances exist where there is 11 cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability of the 12 pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 13 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff sufficiently articulated the facts and 14 circumstances relevant to his claims in his Amended Complaint to pass the screening 15 stage, see Doc. No. 23, but he has yet to show he is likely to succeed on the merits of the 16 claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel at 17 this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings. 18 Finally, Dawes objects to the continuation of the stay in this case. Doc. No. 89. 19 As the Court noted in both its Order Extending the Stay of Proceedings and its Order 20 Construing Motions to Lift Stay as Motions for Reconsideration and Denying Motions 21 for Reconsideration, upon consideration of the supporting declaration of defense counsel 22 and the relevant factors set forth in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 23 324–25 (9th Cir. 1995), a further stay is warranted due to continued litigation in 24 Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 25 competency. See Doc. Nos. 83, 88. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any interested third 26 parties will suffer prejudice because of an extension of the stay of proceedings in this 27 Court. As the Court previously noted, proceedings related to Plaintiff’s criminal charges 28 may impact certain claims and issues in this action. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Speedy Trial, 3 || Appointment of Counsel, and Objection to the Stay Order (Doc. No. 89). Further, the 4 ||Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to update Plaintiff's address and mail this Order to: 5 William Dawes 6 CDCR No. G43030 . Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 7 480 Alta Rd. g San Diego, CA 92179 10 || Dated: March 13, 2024 11 .
13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28