Menefee v. Clark County Sheriff

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 25, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05616
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DAMASCUS LORD SEYMOUR MENEFEE, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05616-JNW-DWC 11 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 v. 13 CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF, 14 Respondent. 15 This action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. 16 Petitioner Damascus Lord Seymour Menefee, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 17 this action by filing a federal habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 6. Having 18 reviewed the petition, the Court concludes it is inappropriate to intervene in this case and that 19 Petitioner’s sole claim for relief is unexhausted. Therefore, Petitioner is directed to show cause 20 on or before September 24, 2025, why this action should not be dismissed. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at Clark County Jail, alleges he is being detained unlawfully 23 because his waiver of extradition was invalid, unintentional, and/or given under duress. Dkt. 6 at 24 1 6–7. Petitioner states that he presented this claim in an affidavit for judicial notice filed before 2 the trial court in his ongoing criminal proceedings but has not presented his claim before any 3 other forum in the Washington State courts. Id. at 2–5. 4 II. SCREENING STANDARD

5 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases (“Habeas Rules”),1 the Court is 6 required to perform a preliminary review of a habeas petition. Rule 4 specifically directs the 7 Court to dismiss a habeas petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it 8 “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 9 relief in the district court.” Dismissal under Rule 4 “is required on procedural grounds, such as 10 failure to exhaust or untimeliness, or on substantive grounds where the claims are ‘vague,’ 11 ‘conclusory,’ ‘palpably’ incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 12 F.4th 1038 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1977)). Before 13 dismissing a petition under Rule 4, however, district courts must provide habeas petitioners 14 notice of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard. See Race v. Salmonsen, 131

15 F.4th 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2025). 16 III. DISCUSSION 17 Upon review, the Court concludes that federal adjudication of the petition is barred by the 18 abstention doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971). Under Younger, 19 abstention from interference with pending state judicial proceedings is appropriate when: “(1) 20 there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state 21 interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 22 23 1 The Habeas Rules are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), which states “[t]he district court 24 may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a).” 1 challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of 2 enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th 3 Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th 4 Cir. 2014)). Federal courts, however, do not invoke the Younger abstention if there is a “showing

5 of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 6 inappropriate.” Middlesex Cty Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 7 (1982). 8 All of the Younger criteria are satisfied here. First, Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee with 9 ongoing state proceedings. Second, as these proceedings involve a criminal prosecution, they 10 implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986); Younger, 401 11 U.S. at 43–44. Third, Petitioner has failed to allege facts showing he has been denied an adequate 12 opportunity to address the alleged constitutional violations in his state court proceedings. Fourth, 13 Petitioner seeks release from custody alleging his waiver of extradition was invalid or unlawfully 14 obtained. If this Court were to conclude that Petitioner was entitled to such relief, this would

15 have the practical effect of enjoining Petitioner’s ongoing proceedings in the Washington State 16 courts. Accordingly, Younger abstention appears to apply in this case, and Petitioner must show 17 cause why his petition is not subject to dismissal. 18 The petition is also deficient given Petitioner’s representations about his efforts at 19 exhausting the available state court remedies for his claim. Dkt. 6 at 2–5. “[A] state prisoner 20 must normally exhaust available state judicial remedies before a federal court will entertain his 21 Petition for habeas corpus.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 275 (1971). A petitioner’s claim 22 will be considered exhausted only after “the state courts [have been afforded] a meaningful 23 opportunity to consider allegations of legal error without interference from the federal judiciary.”

24 1 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 257 (1986). “[S]tate prisoners must give the state courts one 2 full opportunity to resolve any constitutional issues by invoking one complete round of the 3 State’s established appellate review.” O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). 4 Although there is no exhaustion requirement mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), the

5 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held exhaustion is necessary as a matter of comity unless 6 special circumstances warrant federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial. Carden v. State 7 of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner fails to show that he exhausted his state 8 court remedies by presenting his claim for a complete round of review in the Washington state 9 courts. Petitioner has also made no showing of special circumstances warranting federal 10 intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings despite his failure to exhaust available state 11 court remedies. 12 Accordingly, if Petitioner intends to proceed in this action, he must show cause why the 13 petition should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine and for failure to exhaust 14 his state court remedies. See Jones v. Carter, No. 1:23-CV-00285-DKG, 2024 WL 185222, at *1

15 (D. Idaho Jan. 16, 2024) (dismissing § 2241 petition challenging wavier of extradition for failure 16 to exhaust available state court remedies); Marshall v. Shockley, No. CIV.A. L-02-2328, 2002 17 WL 32841652, at *1 (D. Md. July 23, 2002), certificate of appealability denied and appeal 18 dismissed, 48 F. App’x 905 (4th Cir. 2002) (dismissing § 2241 habeas petition challenging 19 extradition waiver under Younger abstention doctrine and for failure to exhaust). 20 IV. INSTRUCTIONS TO PETITIONER 21 For the reasons set forth above, the Court declines to direct service of the petition in 22 accordance with Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules. Instead, Petitioner must show cause why the 23 petition should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine and for failure to exhaust.

24 1 Failure to respond to this order or adequately address the issues addressed herein by September 2 24, 2025, will result in a recommendation this action be dismissed. 3 Dated this 25th day of August, 2025. 4 A 5 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24