Dilnessa v. Department of State Hospitals

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: July 6, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00784
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AYALNEH DILNESSA, Case No. 23-cv-00784-TLT

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9

10 DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a petitioner who is confined at Napa State Hospital, 15 apparently as a pretrial detainee for restoration of competency. His motion for leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis (ECF 5) is GRANTED. For the reasons stated below, the petition will be 17 dismissed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 According to the petition, petitioner is awaiting trial on charges of assault with a deadly 20 weapon and was sent to Napa State Hospital pursuant to California Penal Code section 1370, 21 which requires that a trial be suspended if a person is found mentally incompetent to stand trial. 22 ECF 1 at 2; Cal. Penal Code § 1370(a)(B). Petitioner states he was detained in the Butte County 23 jail on October 21, 2022, and taken to Napa State Hospital on January 17, 2023. ECF 1 at 2. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a 27 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which provides habeas 1 the United States. However, principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain 2 and not entertain a petitioner’s pre-conviction habeas challenge unless he shows that: (1) he has 3 exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal 4 intervention. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980). “Special 5 circumstances” warranting federal intervention include cases of “proven harassment or 6 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction 7 and perhaps other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.” Id. at 8 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). 9 B. Petitioner’s Claims 10 Petitioner claims that he is subject to “unlawful confinement against my free will” and that 11 Deputy Yee threatened that if he did not come out of the south dorm he would “use force and tie 12 me up and . . . throw me in a police van to transport me to Napa State Hospital, where I am being 13 held without any conviction.” ECF 1 at 3. 14 Petitioner states that on September 30, 2020, he was having a conversation with his 15 roommate that turned into an altercation in which he “brought a small stick and tried to defend 16 [him]self from a knife attack” and then “brought a wood splitting axe from his closet and showed 17 it to him so he won’t come and attack me again.” ECF 1 at 3. He states his roommate called the 18 police and falsified a police report. Id. He also describes a prior altercation with the roommate, 19 who believed petitioner was having an affair with his girlfriend, in which the roommate broke his 20 door and hit him in the head. Id. at 4. 21 Petitioner states he “was simply held by a false warrant for [his] arrest ordered by Butte 22 Superior Court then was transported to Napa State Hospital.” Id. at 5. He did not seek 23 administrative review because he was “not convicted or tried or bail bonded due to Butte County 24 Superior Court decision to send me to state hospital.” Id. He seeks “to be released to complete 25 freedom” and for the charges to be dismissed. In the alternative, he requests deportation to 26 Ethiopia. ECF 1 at 9. 27 Petitioner has not exhausted his claims, nor does he demonstrate special circumstances 1 any constitutional claims. The petition will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to refiling a 2 || habeas petition if special circumstances arise, or to refiling under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after all state 3 proceedings, including appeal, are completed. 4 C. Certificate of Appealability 5 A certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 6 || which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 7 debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 8 CONCLUSION 9 Petitioner is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, but, for the foregoing reasons, the 10 || petition is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter 11 || judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 12 This Order terminates docket number 5. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |] Dated: July 3, 2023 15 16 ( st : Lenn _ 5 US AL: MPSON nited States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28