Hernandez v. Eastern State Hospital

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 4:22-cv-05126
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 Feb 06, 2023 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 BRAYN PAUL HERNANDEZ, No. 4:22-CV-05126-SAB 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 12 ACTION 13 ERIC CARPENTER, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Before the Court is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 10. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee 18 currently held at the Eastern State Hospital, is proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis. Respondent has not been served. 20 Petitioner commenced this action on October 6, 2022. By Order filed 21 November 16, 2022, the Court advised Petitioner of the deficiencies of his prior 22 petition and directed him to amend within sixty days. ECF No. 7. Specifically, the 23 Court noted that Petitioner’s admission that he had a pending motion in the state 24 Court of Appeals, ECF No. 1 at 2, indicated he had not fully exhausted his state 25 court remedies. See, e.g., Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 489–92 26 (1973); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). 27 Having reviewed Petitioner’s amended petition and liberally construing it in 28 the light most favorable to Petitioner, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled 1 to the habeas corpus relief he seeks at this time as he had not fully exhausted his 2 state court remedies when he filed his initial habeas action. See Peterson v. 3 Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 4 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the Court is bound to abstain from considering 5 Petitioner’s claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). See 6 Lazarus v. Baca, 389 F. App’x 700, 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing cases mandating 7 Younger abstention to claims of excessive bail during ongoing state criminal 8 proceedings). 9 Furthermore, Petitioner did not name a proper Respondent in his First 10 Amended Petition. The proper respondent in a federal petition seeking habeas 11 corpus relief is the person having custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 12 542 U.S. 426 (2004); Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 13 1994). Failure to name a proper respondent deprives federal courts of personal 14 jurisdiction. See Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360. Therefore, the Court lacks personal 15 jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s habeas claims. 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED this action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Court certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter this Order enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner at his last known address and close th || file. 10 DATED THIS 6th day of February 2023. 11 12 13 14 Sfrscleyld Ec thar 16 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28