Garcia v. State of Washington

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: October 27, 2021
• Docket: 4:21-cv-05089
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Oct 27, 2021

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 NOEL GARCIA, No. 4:21-cv-05089-SMJ 5 Petitioner, 6 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 7 STATE OF WASHINGTON, 8 Respondent. 9

10 Before the Court is Petitioner Noel Garcia’s First Amended Petition for a 11 Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 9. Petitioner, a pretrial 12 detainee at the Franklin County Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. 13 Respondent has not been served. 14 Liberally construing the First Amended Petition in the light most favorable 15 to Mr. Garcia, the Court finds that he has failed to cure the deficiencies of the initial 16 petition. Specifically, the Court instructed Petitioner to name his current custodian 17 as the proper respondent to this action. ECF No. 8 at 2; see, e.g., Ortiz-Sandoval v. 18 Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 1996). Petitioner did not follow this instruction 19 and he did not demonstrate that he fully exhausted each of the claims presented to 20 this Court for habeas review. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 1 489–92 (1973); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). To the extent 2 Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings are still pending, the Court finds it proper to

3 abstain from intervening in those proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 4 (1971). 5 Therefore, for the reasons set forth above and in the previous Order, ECF No.

6 8, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction. 7 See Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 9 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of

10 personal jurisdiction. 11 2. All pending motions are denied as moot. 12 3. The Clerk’s Office is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT and CLOSE this

13 file. 14 4. The Court certifies that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in 15 good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a Certificate of 16 Appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(a)(3), 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P.

17 22(b). 18 // 19 //

20 // 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order and 2 provide a copy to pro se Petitioner. 3 DATED this 27" day of October 2021. 4 _ eal het SALVADOR MENDOZA\, \JR. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20