Kenneth Ray Ballard v. Santa Clara Superior Court

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 KENNETH RAY BALLARD, Case No. 25-cv-09472-NW

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING MATTER 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

10 SANTA CLARA SUPERIOR COURT, Re: ECF No. 9 Respondent. 11

12 13 Petitioner Kenneth Ray Ballard, a pro se state detainee, filed the instant habeas corpus 14 petition challenging the state court’s rulings during a preliminary hearing and alleging that his 15 speedy trial rights were violated. ECF No. 1 at 3–4. The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT 18 Ballard asserts in his petition (ECF No. 1) that he was not allowed to cross-examine the 19 victim or view body-camera footage of the victim’s interview during his preliminary hearing on 20 unspecified charges. He also asserts that his right to a speedy trial was violated because his 21 attorney “lied about . . . having a conversation in w[hich] she question [Ballard’s] competency.” 22 Id. at 4. Ballard indicates on the face of the petition that he is raising the instant claims for the 23 first time in this Court.1 25 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state prisoner, such as 26 Ballard, who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court” within the meaning of 28 27 1 U.S.C. § 2254. See Hoyle v. Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (pre-trial double 2 jeopardy challenge). Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement for a petition brought 3 under § 2241, principles of federalism and comity generally require that this Court abstain until all 4 state criminal proceedings are completed and Ballard exhausts available judicial state remedies. 5 See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1980); see also United States ex rel. 6 Goodman v. Kehl, 456 F.2d 863, 869 (2d Cir. 1972) (pretrial detainees must first exhaust state 7 remedies); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (discussing federal abstention doctrine). 8 Federal intervention is not barred by the abstention doctrine only in cases with special 9 circumstances, such as where a petitioner has proven harassment or bad-faith prosecution without 10 hope of obtaining a valid conviction, and “perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 11 irreparable injury can be shown.” Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 12 85 (1971)). 13 Ballard’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing, and the face of the petition shows that 14 Ballard had not exhausted his available state remedies before he filed this action. See ECF No. 1 15 at 6 (stating “[t]he Superior Court in Santa Clara County are being one sided” in response to 16 question asking why the matter was not filed in lower state court); id. at 8 (answering “yes” to 17 question asking whether claim is being raised for the first time). Claims challenging evidentiary 18 rulings, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel, or alleging violations of speedy trial rights are 19 generally not considered special circumstances warranting federal intervention in state criminal 20 proceedings because each claim is amenable to review through available state court procedures. 21 See Anderson v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. And Rehabilitation, No. 10-cv-05557-CW, 2011 WL 22 3502494, *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2011); see also Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (alleged violation of 23 speedy trial rights not alone an extraordinary circumstance); Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 902– 24 03 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that federal intervention not warranted based on petitioner’s claim that 25 speedy trial rights were violated following five-year pretrial delay). Accordingly, Ballard has not 26 shown special circumstances warranting federal intervention in his state criminal prosecution. 27 1 Il. CONCLUSION 2 The Court orders as follows: 3 1. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 2. The dismissal is without prejudice to Ballard filing a habeas petition in state court 5 or filing a new federal habeas petition after his criminal case is final and he has 6 exhausted state court remedies for his claims. 7 3. The pending motion for leave to file in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as 8 moot. 9 4. The Clerk shall close the file. 11 Dated: February 13, 2026

Noél Wise 13 United States District Judge

15 16

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