(HC) Myers v. Fresno Police Department

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ANTHONY E. MYERS, Case No. 1:20-cv-00472-NONE-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 13 v. RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION 14 FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

15 Respondents.

16 17 Petitioner is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus. 19 I. 20 BACKGROUND 21 Petitioner is currently confined at the Fresno County jail. (ECF No. 1 at 2).1 In the instant 22 federal habeas petition, Petitioner raises a speedy trial claim with respect to his Fresno County 23 criminal proceeding, which involves resisting an executive officer in violation of California 24 Penal Code sections 69. (Id. at 2, 3). Petitioner also alleges that he was unlawfully arrested, 25 subject to assault and sexual assault while in detention, had his legal documents confiscated, and 26 was denied penicillin. (Id. at 4, 12, 17, 19). The petition also includes allegations regarding 27 cryptocurrency and various technologies. (Id. at 12–19). 1 On April 7, 2020, the Court ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should not 2 be dismissed based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), failure to exhaust state judicial 3 remedies, and failure to state cognizable federal habeas corpus claims. (ECF No. 4). Petitioner 4 filed responses to the order to show cause on April 28, 2020.2 (ECF Nos. 7, 8). 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases3 requires preliminary review of a 8 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 9 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 10 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 11 A. Younger Abstention 12 In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that when there is a 13 pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state 14 prosecution. Younger, 401 U.S. at 41; Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 15 (2013). See also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125, 133 (2004) (“The doctrine of Younger v. 16 Harris . . . reinforces our federal scheme by preventing a state criminal defendant from asserting 17 ancillary challenges to ongoing state criminal procedures in federal court.”). “Younger 18 abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and 19 federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of 20 San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). 21 The Ninth Circuit has held that the “logical implication” of Younger “is that abstention 22 principles likewise prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction habeas petition that 23

24 2 Petitioner filed two responses to the order to show cause. One response, entitled “Non-filed Order to Show Cause ‘Fraud’,” consists of the Court’s order to show cause and various documents previously submitted to the Court as 25 attachments to the petition. (ECF No. 7). The other response, entitled “Amended Complaint and Reply,” lists the case number of the instant proceeding as well as the case number of Petitioner’s prisoner civil rights action that is also pending in the district court. (ECF No. 8). The Court will construe this submission as a response to the Court’s 26 order to show cause in the instant matter. See Bernhardt v. Los Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally . . . .”). 27 3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases also apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not 1 seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense unless the petitioner can 2 demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant federal intervention.” Brown v. Ahern, 3 676 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980)). 4 Extraordinary circumstances include “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by 5 state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or situations “where 6 irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown, 676 F.3d at 903 (internal quotation marks omitted) 7 (quoting Carden, 626 F.2d at 84). 8 “[T]he rule of this circuit is that abstention principles generally require a federal district 9 court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises 10 a claim under the Speedy Trial Clause as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.” Brown, 11 676 F.3d at 903 (emphasis added). However, a petitioner seeking “only to demand enforcement 12 of the [State]’s affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him promptly to trial,” and having 13 exhausted all available state remedies toward that end, may go forward with a federal habeas 14 petition. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489–90 (1973). See 15 Coleman v. Ahlin, 542 F. App’x 549, 551 (9th Cir. 2013) (noting that Braden “[p]lac[ed] great 16 weight on the fact that ‘petitioner made no effort to abort a state proceeding or to disrupt the 17 orderly functioning of state judicial processes,’ and that he came ‘to federal court, not in an effort 18 to forestall a state prosecution, but to enforce the Commonwealth’s obligation to provide him 19 with a state court forum.’” (quoting Braden, 410 U.S. at 491)). 20 Here, Petitioner requests “release from unlawful custody.” (ECF No. 1 at 9). Although 21 unclear, it appears that the petition raises a speedy trial claim as an affirmative defense to state 22 prosecution, which would require the Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction. Although the 23 Court ordered Petitioner to “inform the Court whether he raises a speedy trial claim as an 24 affirmative defense to state prosecution or whether he seeks only to demand enforcement of the 25 State’s obligation to bring him promptly to trial,” (ECF No. 4 at 3), Petitioner does not directly 26 and explicitly provide an answer in his response to the order to show cause. However, Petitioner 27 does refer to “requesting immediate release.” (ECF No. 8 at 2). 1 Based on the foregoing, it appears that Petitioner raises a speedy trial claim as an 2 affirmative defense to state prosecution, which requires this Court to abstain from exercising its 3 jurisdiction. Brown, 676 F.3d at 903. As the instant federal habeas petition challenges 4 Petitioner’s ongoing criminal proceeding in state court, the Court should abstain from interfering 5 with the state judicial process pursuant to Younger, and dismissal is warranted on this ground. 6 B. Conditions of Confinement 7 A claim falls within the “core of habeas corpus” when a prisoner challenges “the fact or 8 duration of his confinement” and “seeks either immediate release from that confinement or the 9 shortening of its duration.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 489 (1973). The Ninth Circuit 10 recently adopted a rule that a “state prisoner’s claim [that] does not lie at ‘the core of habeas 11 corpus’ . . . must be brought, ‘if at all,’ under § 1983.” Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 934 12 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Preiser, 411 U.S. at 487; Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 13 535 n.13 (2011)). Therefore, if “success on [Petitioner]’s claims would not necessarily lead to his 14 immediate or earlier release from confinement, [Petitioner]’s claim does not fall within ‘the core 15 of habeas corpus,’ and he must instead bring his claim under § 1983.” Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935 16 (quoting Skinner, 562 U.S. at 535 n.13). 17 In addition to his speedy trial and unlawful arrest claims, Petitioner also alleges that he 18 was subject to assault and sexual assault while in detention, had his legal documents confiscated, 19 and was denied penicillin. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 12, 17, 19). The Ninth Circuit has “long held that 20 prisoners may not challenge mere conditions of confinement in habeas corpus.” Nettles, 830 F.3d 21 at 933 (citing Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891–92 (9th Cir. 1979)). Accordingly, dismissal is 22 warranted on this ground. 23 III. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 26 writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice. 27 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District wASe LOUVRE SPAIN eT OY VI

1 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 2 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 3 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 4 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 5 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 6 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified 7 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 8 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 11 | Dated: _May 13, 2020_ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28