Petersen v. Flood

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00206
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 JERRY DEAN PETERSON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00206-JLR-TLF 7 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND 8 RECOMMENDATION JOHN FLOOD, 9 Noted for November 7, 2024 Respondent. 10

11 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee in Snohomish County, seeks federal habeas relief 12 under 28 U.S.C. 2241 from pending criminal charges. Dkt. 10. Respondent filed an 13 answer to the petition on August 7, 2024. Dkt. 15. For the reasons set forth below, the 14 undersigned recommends that the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice. Also, for 15 the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that issuance of the 16 certificate of appealability (COA) be DENIED as well. 17 BACKGROUND 18 Petitioner is awaiting trial in Snohomish County Superior Court for offenses under 19 Washington State law including rape of a child in the first, second and third degrees. 20 Dkt. 16-1, at 2-3 (State’s Appendix A, Information and Affidavit of Probable Cause). The 21 trial is scheduled for November 12, 2024. Dkt. 16-1 at 42 (State’s Appendix B, Order 22 Continuing Trial). 23 Petitioner raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and speedy trial 24 violations. Dkt. 10. 1 Petitioner’s trial was originally scheduled for March 20, 2020. Dkt. 16-1 at 12 2 (State’s Appendix B, Order Continuing Trial). The Court granted continuances 13 times 3 for reasons including the COVID-19 pandemic (Id. at 16-17) and Petitioner’s attorneys 4 needing more time to prepare for trial (Id. at 14, 18, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 39, 42).

5 Petitioner has had four different attorneys appointed to represent him. See id. 6 As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court grant his petition. Dkt. 10 at 7. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Because Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee facing unresolved and pending state 9 criminal charges the Court must determine whether it must abstain under Younger v. 10 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). A federal court must abstain under Younger when: (1) there 11 is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 12 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 13 constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the 14 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 15 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). Federal courts will not abstain under Younger when 16 there is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance 17 that would make abstention inappropriate. Id. at 765–66. 18 The Younger abstention doctrine applies to actions seeking federal habeas 19 corpus relief. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764,764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“only in the most 20 unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of 21 injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed 22 from and the case concluded in the state courts.”). Additionally, absent specifically 23 defined extraordinary circumstances, principles of federalism and comity prohibit a 24 1 federal district court from entertaining a pre-conviction habeas petition that raises a 2 Speedy Trial claim as an affirmative defense to state prosecution. Brown v. Ahern, 676 3 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2012). 4 The Court should abstain in this case because the Younger factors are met.

5 Petitioner faces an ongoing state criminal prosecution which clearly implicates important 6 state interests; petitioner can raise his constitutional challenges by filing motions in the 7 state courts; and the requested habeas relief would undermine the state courts’ 8 determinations regarding petitioner's criminal case. Claims of speedy trial violations and 9 the ineffective assistance of counsel will be reviewable both in state court and, if 10 necessary, in subsequent federal habeas corpus proceedings following exhaustion of 11 state remedies on direct appeal and post-conviction proceedings in state court. 12 Further, the record does not show the type of extraordinary circumstances that 13 would potentially give the federal court grounds for an exception to the abstention 14 doctrine. There is no evidence of bad faith or harassment; he alleges ineffective

15 assistance of counsel, he alleges claims related to the health difficulties experienced by 16 petitioner while in isolation at the jail, and he alleges that events occurred in the Courts 17 and jails that had a detrimental effect on justice in his case, during the COVID-19 global 18 pandemic. See e.g., Dkt. 10, Petition for Habeas Corpus, at 7, 28-29 (petitioner alleges 19 delay and continuous detention beginning in January of 2020, difficulty communicating 20 with his attorneys during isolation at the jail, that he experienced a heart condition, and 21 deteriorating mental health, beginning in 2020). The Court accordingly concludes 22 Younger abstention is appropriate and recommends the case be dismissed without 23 prejudice.

24 1 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 2 A certificate of appealability is required for habeas petitions under § 2241 3 challenging pretrial detention. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 824 (9th Cir. 2009). A 4 prisoner seeking habeas relief may appeal a district court's dismissal of the petition only 5 after obtaining a COA from a district or circuit judge. A COA may be issued only where 6 a petitioner has made “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 7 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). A prisoner satisfies this standard “by demonstrating that jurists 8 of reason could disagree with the district court's resolution of his constitutional claims or 9 that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve 10 encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327 (2003). 11 Under this standard, the Court finds no reasonable jurist would disagree the 12 Court should abstain under Younger. The Court should therefore not issue a COA. 13 Petitioner should address whether a COA should issue in his written objections, if any, 14 to this Report and Recommendation. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing discussion, the undersigned recommends that the Court 17 dismiss the petition for writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. A certificate of 18 appealability should be denied. 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the parties shall 20 have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for 22 purposes of de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can 23 result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 24 1 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations 2 omitted). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Clerk is 3 directed to set the matter for consideration on November 7, 2024, as noted in the 4 caption.

5 6 Dated this 23rd day of October, 2024. 7 8 9 A

10 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13

14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24