Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff
This text of Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff (Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Case No.: 19cv1784 MMA (RBB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING CASE 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 19 MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 20 Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis but she has not provided 21 the Court with sufficient information to determine her financial status. A request to 22 proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the 23 warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner 24 has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. 25 Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 26 ABSTENTION 27 In any event, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is 28 barred from consideration of the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger 1 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with 2 ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see 3 Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) 4 (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with 5 pending state judicial proceedings.”). These concerns are particularly important in the 6 habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby 7 rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 8 1983). 9 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 10 (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important 11 state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the 12 federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th 13 Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the 14 instant Petition, she states she was arrested on August 14, 2019, and that her preliminary 15 hearing is “in schedule.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2, 10.) Thus, Petitioner’s criminal case is 16 still ongoing in the state courts. Further, there is no question that the state criminal 17 proceedings involve important state interests. 18 Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that she has not been afforded an adequate 19 opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to 20 support a contention that the state courts do not provide her an adequate opportunity to 21 raise her claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Indeed, 22 Petitioner’s claims of false arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel are the type of 23 claims that state courts provide an opportunity to raise on direct appeal. Abstention is 24 therefore required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in 25 the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by 26 way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been 27 appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”) Petitioner has failed to 28 demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its 1 obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Juidice v. 2 Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may 3 not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.) 4 CLAIMS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 5 Additionally, some of the claims Petitioner raises in her Petition are not properly 6 brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth 7 the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims: 8 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a 9 person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the 10 ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 11
12 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 13 In claims two and three, Petitioner claims “jail conditions are hostile, irritable, 14 unhealthy, and low functioning.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 7.) She also alleges that “jail 15 medical refuses to honor [her] records of diabetes and administer treatment.” (Id.) She 16 complains about a lack of access to special religious diets, lack of healthy food, 17 recreation, showers, legal research materials, sanitation, and mental health resources. 18 (Id.) She also alleges that “gender variant inmates are not given much to maintain gender 19 identity,” there are “no gender variant support resources or housing . . . safely available in 20 jail.” (Id. at 8.) These claims do not allege Petitioner is “in custody in violation of the 21 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” and are not cognizable on habeas 22 because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See 23 28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 24 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 25 Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 26 of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement 27 are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 28 488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 1 ||imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 2 ||release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 3 ||habeas corpus. Jd. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a 4 ||state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, 5 || but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole 6 || Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 7 CONCLUSION 8 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 9 || forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Haywood v. San Diego, CA Sheriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haywood-v-san-diego-ca-sheriff-casd-2019.