Steve v. Tuni

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00025
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 LAWSON G. STEVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-00025-MMD-CSD

7 Petitioner, ORDER v. 8

9 CATHY TUNI, et al.,

10 Respondents.

11 12 Lawson G. Steve has submitted a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. 13 (ECF No. 1-1.) His application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. (ECF No. 1.) But 14 on initial review, the Court finds that Steve’s claims appear unexhausted, and that federal 15 abstention is appropriate, so the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 16 Lawson states that he was arrested on October 5, 2022, and is currently in the 17 custody of the Washoe County Sheriff. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) He was charged in the Fallon 18 Paiute Shoshone Tribal Court with arson and reckless burning and interfering with law 19 enforcement procedures. (Id. at 22-23.) In his petition for federal habeas relief, he alleges 20 that no trial date has been set and that he has been provided no discovery. (Id. at 5-7.) 21 Steve’s petition seeks federal judicial intervention in a pending trial court criminal 22 proceeding. Cf. e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); Carden v. 23 Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980). The comity-based Younger abstention 24 doctrine prevents federal courts from enjoining pending state court criminal proceedings, 25 even if there is an allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary 26 circumstance that creates a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 27 53-54 (1971). The United States Supreme Court has instructed that “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding.” Sprint 1 Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) (emphasis added); Gilbertson v. 2 Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally abstain from granting any 3 relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings). Injuries are only 4 irreparable if the threat to a petitioner’s federally protected rights cannot be eliminated 5 through his defense of the criminal case. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. 6 Generally, courts’ reluctance to interfere with on-going state criminal trials extends 7 to tribal courts. Means v. Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court, 154 F.3d 941, 949 (9th Cir. 8 1998) (overruled on other grounds by U.S. v. Enas, 255 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2001). 9 However, this is typically analyzed in the context of the requirement that tribal remedies 10 be exhausted before the federal courts will get involved. (Id.) Federal courts will not 11 consider a petition for habeas relief until the petitioner has properly exhausted his 12 available remedies for all claims raised. See Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 13 (9th Cir. 1998). The “principles of federalism and comity” that preclude most pre-trial 14 grants of habeas relief in state cases are reflected [in the tribal court context] in the 15 exhaustion requirement. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 15 & 16 n. 8, 16 107 S.Ct. 971, 94 L.Ed.2d 10 (1987) (holding, in the context of a civil case, that 17 “considerations of comity direct that tribal remedies be exhausted before the question is 18 addressed by the District Court”). 19 Here, Steve states that he has filed motions to dismiss and for discovery in Tribal 20 Court. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) He also filed a pretrial habeas petition in Tribal Court in January 21 2023. (Id. at 6-7.) Thus, he is pursuing relief in that court. The Court further notes that this 22 case does not present extraordinary circumstances. Steve challenges the alleged delay 23 in setting a trial date and in obtaining discovery. (Id. at 5-7.) Defendants in state criminal 24 proceedings routinely allege that state criminal proceedings violate their constitutional 25 rights, including fundamental rights, which makes this a regular occurrence, not an 26 extraordinary circumstance. Steve’s situation is no different in substance from that of any 27 criminal defendant facing the potential loss of constitutional rights—including the most 28 1 || fundamental right, to liberty—in a pending criminal prosecution. Finally, it does not appear 2 || that dismissal of this action without prejudice will materially impact the analysis of any 3 || issue in a later-filed habeas proceeding or otherwise result in substantial prejudice. 4 It is therefore ordered that Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis 5 || (ECF No. 1) is granted. 6 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court file the petition for writ of habeas corpus. 7 || (ECF No. 1-1.) 8 It is further ordered that the petition is dismissed without prejudice. 9 It is further ordered that a certificate of appealability is denied. 10 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter final judgment dismissing this 11 || action and close this case. 12 DATED THIS 24" Day of February 2023. AGA 14 MIRANDAM.DU- ————<—tCS 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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