Giang Vu v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GIANG VU, Case No. 25-cv-09471-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER VACATING DISMISSAL; REOPENING CASE; DISMISSING 9 v. ACTION WITH PREJUDICE; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, 11 Respondent. 12 13 On or about October 22, 2025, Petitioner filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas 14 corpus, which was dismissed without prejudice on February 18, 2026. Dkt. No. 1. For the reasons 15 set forth below, the Court VACATES the February 18, 2026 Order of Dismissal and related 16 judgment; directs the Clerk to REOPEN this action and to refund the $400 overpayment; 17 DISMISSES this petition; and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. Procedural Background 20 On or about October 20, 2025,1 Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Ninth Circuit Court 21 of Appeals. Dkt. No. 1. The Ninth Circuit transferred the petition to this Court. Dkt. No. 2. On 22 February 18, 2026, the Court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to either pay the 23 filing fee or file a complete in forma pauperis application. Dkt. No. 14. On May 4, 2026, the 24 Court received a letter from Petitioner’s parent, Cat Thi Ho, with a receipt showing that they had 25 paid a $405.00 filing fee for this case on April 16, 2026. Dkt. No. 20. 26 27 1 II. Reopening Action and Ordering Clerk to Issue Refund 2 This action was originally closed for failure to either pay the filing fee or file an in forma 3 pauperis application. Dkt. Nos. 14, 15. Petitioner has now paid the $5 filing fee. Dkt. No. 20. 4 The Court therefore ORDERS the Clerk to VACATE the order of dismissal and judgment 5 docketed at Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, and REOPEN this action. 6 The Court has received $405.00 from Petitioner’s parent for the filing fee for this case. 7 However, this action is an application for a writ of habeas corpus.2 The filing fee for an 8 application for a writ of habeas corpus is $5, and no administrative fee is due. 28 U.S.C. § 9 1914(a)(1) ($5 filing fee for writ of habeas corpus) and Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, 10 District Ct. Misc. Fee Schedule, § 14 (eff. Dec. 1, 2023) ($52 administrative fee for civil action 11 inapplicable to applications for writ of habeas corpus). The Court therefore ORDERS the Clerk to 12 refund $400 to Petitioner’s parent, Cat Thi Ho. 13 III. Habeas Petition 14 A. Standard of Review 15 This habeas petition is brought pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 28 U.S.C. § 2254, 16 depending on whether Petitioner is currently a pretrial detainee awaiting trial on criminal charges 17 or detained pursuant to a civil commitment. Section 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition 18 by a person in state custody who is not held pursuant to the judgment of a State court, such as a 19 pretrial detainee. White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004), overruled on other 20 grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc) (listing “awaiting 21 extradition” and pretrial detention as examples of when Section 2241 applies); McNeely v. Blanas, 22 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (pretrial detainee). Section 2254 is the proper basis for a 23 habeas petition by a person in state custody pursuant to a state court order of civil commitment. 24 See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 176 (2001) (civil commitment satisfies Section 2254’s “in 25 custody” requirement); Huftile v. Miccio–Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir. 2005) 26 2 The fee required to commence a civil action is $405, which is comprised of a $350 filing fee and 27 a $55 administrative fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914 ($350 filing fee for civil actions) and Judicial 1 (“[D]etainees under an involuntary civil commitment scheme . . . may use a § 2254 habeas petition 2 to challenge a term of confinement.”). Regardless of whether Petitioner seeks habeas relief 3 pursuant to Section 2241 or Section 2254, the writ is only available if his custody is in violation of 4 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). 5 B. Petition 6 The petition is hard to follow but appears to make the following allegations. Petitioner 7 was charged with sexual crimes against a minor and battery (Cal. Penal Code §§ 243, 288(b), 8 288.7). Petitioner has been in custody since at least 2021. Between January 1, 2021 and October 9 20, 2025, Petitioner was represented by five different attorneys: public defender Jame Avarret 10 (Jan. 1, 2021 to Apr. 1, 2021), Michael Vu (April 2, 2021 to Mar. 28, 2022), public defender 11 Laura Petty (Apr. 1, 2022 to Apr. 20, 2023), public defender Christopher Montoya (May 1, 2023 12 to Feb. 9, 2024 and Feb. 7, 2025 to Feb 14, 2025), and an unnamed public defender (starting Apr. 13 17, 2025). On December 22, 2021, Petitioner’s case was dismissed because the victim did not 14 show up in court and Petitioner was “in jail release on SORP.” Despite this, Petitioner was 15 retained in custody. Petitioner’s case was set for speedy trial multiple times in late 2022 and early 16 2023, but the trial was cancelled by Attorney Petty. On April 3, 2023, Petitioner’s case 17 commenced with jury selection. On April 12, 2023, the judge informed the district attorney, “I 18 don’t see any evidence to Mr. Vu” and the district attorney was unable to produce new evidence. 19 On April 20, 2023, the judge cancelled the trial. Over the next year, nothing happened in 20 Petitioner’s case, and Attorney Montoya never took Petitioner’s calls and did not do anything that 21 Petitioner requested. On Nov. 4, 2024, Petitioner was sent to the state mental hospital in Kern 22 County but was deemed competent after 80 days. On February 7, 2025, Petitioner returned to 23 court and Attorney Montoya requested that Petitioner undergo psychiatric evaluation. On April 24 17, 2025, the trial court set up a competency trial, which took place on July 15, 2025. At the trial, 25 three doctors testified. Two of the doctors found Petitioner to be competent. The third doctor 26 described Petitioner as a dreamer with optical illusions, and recommended a two to three year stay 27 in the state mental hospital. Petitioner was sent to a mental hospital. See generally Dkt. No. 1. 1 constitutional or legal grounds. Petitioner makes the general allegation that his human rights and 2 constitutional rights have been violated and that he is innocent:

3 They are using very powerfull, discriminating team, work together, dirty method and oppress “I the people is not guilty,” and took off my “human rights” by almost five 4 years sat in jail with four “Nos;” 1) No evidence. 5 2) No victim and witnesses. 3) No case (dismissed my case). 6 4) No bail allowed. . . . 7 My “Human Rights” and “Constitutional Rights” have been violated, my case dismissed and mistrial was not by my requested time frame. 8 9 Dkt. No. 1 at 16-17. 10 Petitioner reports seeking review in the California Supreme Court, in Cal. Sup. Ct. C No. 11 S280518, and that review was denied on May 30, 2023. Dkt. No. 1 at 5. According to the 12 California Court Case Information System, which can be accessed at 13 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, Cal. Sup. Ct. C No. S280518 was a petition for a writ of 14 habeas corpus; filed on June 14, 2023; and summarily denied on July 19, 2023 for failure to allege 15 sufficient facts with particularity, with a citation to In re Swain, 34 Cal.2d 300, 304 (1949).3 16 C. Dismissal of Petition as Barred by Younger and Unexhausted 17 The Court presumes that Petitioner brings this habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 18 2241(c)(3) because he is not challenging the temporary civil commitments in the state mental 19 hospital, but challenging his pretrial detention. Petitioner appears to challenge his detention on the 20 grounds that (1) there is no evidence to support the charges and the case has been dismissed; (2) he 21

22 3 Fed. R. Evid. 201 provides that courts may take judicial notice of facts “not subject to reasonable dispute” that are either “(1) generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) 23 can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A district court “may take judicial notice of proceedings in 24 other courts, both within and without the federal judiciary system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) 25 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d 801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Here, the Court takes judicial notice of (1) the docket for Cal. Sup. Ct. C 26 No. S280518, In re Vu (Giang), which is available at https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov, and (2) the docket entries indicating that Petitioner’s habeas petition was filed on June 14, 2023, and 27 was denied on July 19, 2023, for failure to allege sufficient facts with particularity, with a citation 1 has been wrongfully denied bail; (3) he has been denied his right to a speedy trial; and (4) his 2 attorneys have provided ineffective assistance of counsel. 3 The Court DISMISSES the petition as barred by Younger and unexhausted. 4 1. Younger Abstention 5 The petition is barred by Younger. As a general proposition, a federal court will not 6 intervene in a pending state criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances involving 7 great and immediate danger of irreparable harm or absent a showing of the state’s “bad faith, 8 harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable relief.” See Younger 9 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is ‘an 10 ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; 11 (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; 12 and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing 13 state judicial proceeding. Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023); see also 14 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Younger 15 abstention applies to Section 2241 habeas petitions.4 Bean v Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th 16 Cir. 2021). Younger abstention is appropriate where the pre-conviction habeas petition seeks to 17 vindicate a petitioner’s speedy trial affirmative defense because the right to a speedy trial can be 18 vindicated through reversal of the improperly-obtained conviction. Bean, 986 F.3d at 1134. 19 Here, all four criteria for Younger abstention are satisfied. 20 First, the underlying criminal proceedings are pending. Despite the petition’s claim that all 21 the evidence against Petitioner was dismissed in December 2021 and that in April 2023, the judge 22 stated that there was “not any evidence to [Petitioner],” Dkt. No. 1 at 8, 10, the criminal 23 proceeding is clearly ongoing. The petition acknowledges that a jury trial has not yet taken place, 24 with the jury dismissed prior to the commencement of trial because the state superior court found 25 that a competency hearing was needed. Dkt. No. 1 at 11-15. According to the docket, during the 26 4 With respect to Section 2241 petitions brought by pretrial detainees, Younger abstention is 27 inappropriate where the pretrial detainee brings a colorable double jeopardy claim or where the 1 pendency of this case, Petitioner has spent time in the state mental hospital, implying that he has 2 not yet, or only recently, been found competent to stand trial. 3 Second, the state has an important interest in administering its criminal justice system free 4 from federal interference. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“This Court has 5 recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 6 interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court 7 considering equitable types of relief.”). 8 Third, Petitioner can raise in the state courts the claims raised herein by seeking review in 9 the state courts after the conclusion of his criminal proceeding. The state courts have primary 10 responsibility to protect constitutional rights under the federal habeas system. Harrington v. 11 Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 103 (2011) (“state courts are the principal forum for asserting constitutional 12 challenges to state convictions.”); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 27 (2002) (per curiam) 13 (“The federal habeas scheme leaves primary responsibility with the state courts.”). 14 Fourth, the relief requested has the practical effect of enjoining the state court proceedings 15 because he asks the Court to find that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against 16 Petitioner, and that the other alleged constitutional violations require his immediate release. 17 Finally, Petitioner has not made a showing that Younger abstention is inappropriate here. 18 Vague and conclusory claims that “they” are working together and using dirty methods against 19 Petitioner, that there is no evidence against Petitioner, and that unnamed witnesses have lied are 20 insufficient to demonstrate harassment or bad faith prosecution, and insufficient to show that 21 Petitioner faces irreparable injury. 22 2. Failure to Exhaust State Court Remedies 23 Petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. Although there is no exhaustion 24 requirement for a petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), principles of federalism and 25 comity require that this court abstain and not entertain a pretrial habeas challenge unless the 26 petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special 27 circumstances” warrant federal intervention. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 1 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, 2 federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive 3 or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances). Petitioner has not exhausted available 4 state judicial remedies. Petitioner’s 2023 habeas petition filed in the California Supreme Court 5 does not exhaust his state court remedies because the denial of a habeas petition by the California 6 Supreme Court of California with a citation to In re Swain is deemed a denial on procedural 7 grounds, leaving state remedies unexhausted. Kim v. Villalobos, 799 F.2d 1317, 1319 (9th Cir. 8 1986). In addition, the petition was filed in mid 2023 and therefore cannot exhaust any claims for 9 which the factual predicate occurred after 2023. Finally, Petitioner has also failed to show that 10 special circumstances warrant federal intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is 11 completed. Petitioner’s alleged constitutional violations are matters that can and should be 12 addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before he 13 seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus. 14 D. Certificate of Appealability 15 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 16 that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 17 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). A judge shall grant a certificate of 18 appealability “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 19 right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. 20 Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the 21 showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that 22 reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable 23 or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 24 Here, Petitioner has not made such a showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of appealability will 25 be denied. 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows. 1 docketed at Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, and REOPEN this action. 2 2. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to refund $400 to Petitioner’s parent, Cat Thi Ho. 3 3. The Court DISMISSES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus as barred by 4 Younger and unexhausted; and DENIES a certificate of appealability. 5 The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent and against Petitioner; and close the 6 || case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: May 8, 2026

aay S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge 1] a 12

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28