Smith v. Unknown Party ( 2021 )

1 WO SC 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Joshua Daniel Smith, No. CV 20-08125-PCT-MTL (JFM) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Unknown Party, et al., 13 14 Respondents. 15 16 On May 28, 2020, Petitioner Joshua Daniel Smith, who was then-confined in a 17 Mohave County Jail, filed a pro se document captioned as “Special Action Habeas Corpus” 18 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1). Although Petitioner did not file the Petition on the court-approved 19 form for use by prisoners and did not either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file an Application 20 to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Habeas), the Clerk of Court opened a civil case to facilitate 21 consideration of the Petition and designated it as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In the 22 Petition, Petitioner sought to challenge his then-pending criminal proceedings in Mohave 23 County Superior Court. For that reason, the Court construed the Petition as seeking relief 24 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On June 2, 2020, the Court dismissed the Petition with leave to 25 file an amended petition and ordered Petitioner to either pay $5.00 filing fee or file an 26 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Habeas) (Doc. 3). The Clerk of Court mailed 27 the appropriate court-approved forms to Petitioner. 28 Petitioner filed an Amended Petition using the court-approved form (Doc. 4). 1 However, rather than filing an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Habeas), 2 Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Non-Habeas) (Doc. 5). The 3 Court denied the Application to Proceed for using the wrong form and granted Petitioner 4 30 days to file an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Habeas) (Doc. 7). 5 Meanwhile, in his civil rights case, Smith v. Schuster, CV 20-08141-PCT-MTL 6 (JFM), Petitioner filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Habeas), Doc. 4, and 7 indicated that his in forma pauperis applications had been filed in the wrong cases.1 In CV 8 20-08141, the Court ordered that the habeas Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, 9 Doc. 4, be re-docketed in this case. In this case, the Court ordered that the non-habeas 10 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 5, be re-docketed in CV 20-08141 (Doc. 11 8). 12 On August 10, 2020, Petitioner filed a notice of change of address reflecting that he 13 had been released from custody and was residing in Florida. (Doc. 12). The Court ordered 14 Petitioner to show cause why the Amended Petition and this case should not be dismissed 15 because Petitioner was not in custody (Doc. 13). Petitioner has filed a response (Doc. 14) 16 to the show cause order and a notice of change of address (Doc. 15) reflecting that he is 17 residing in Mohave County. 18 I. Background 19 In 2015, Petitioner was convicted of receiving child pornography, pursuant to a plea 20 agreement, in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. United States v. 21 Smith, 2:14cr00052 (D. Nev. Oct. 19, 2015), Docs. 50, 51. On May 31, 2016, Petitioner 22 was sentenced to 70 months in prison followed by lifetime supervised release. Id., Doc. 23 73. On May 6, 2019, shortly before Petitioner’s release from federal prison, Petitioner was 24 informed via a “Detainer Action Letter” that a detainer had been lodged against him by the 25 Mohave County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) concerning Mohave County Superior Court 26 27 1 In that case, the Court ordered Petitioner to either pay the filing and administrative fees or file a non-habeas Application to Proceed, Doc.3. Petitioner then filed a habeas 28 Application to Proceed with an explanation that the wrong applications had been submitted in Petitioner’s two cases, Doc. 4. 1 case# CR 2015-761.2 On May 14, 2019, upon Petitioner’s release from a federal prison in 2 California, Long Beach Police arrested him on a Mohave County felony fugitive warrant.3 3 Petitioner was extradited to Arizona and booked into a Mohave County Jail on May 22, 4 2019. The next day, May 23, 2019, Petitioner was arraigned in the Mohave County case. 5 Petitioner remained detained until August 2020, when the State dismissed CR 2015-761, 6 without prejudice, after the prosecutor failed to timely seek admission of Rule 404(c)4 7 evidence, specifically, evidence of Petitioner’s federal offense and conviction and the trial 8 court denied a motion to extend the deadline. (Doc. 14 at 4-5). 9 Petitioner was released from the Mohave County jail. Forty-five days later, Mohave 10 County prosecutors filed a new case against Petitioner, CR 2020-924, charging him with 11 the same offense as the one charged in the dismissed 2015 case, child molestation. 12 Petitioner was served with a summons and arraigned in the case on September 24, 2020. 13 See id., Doc. 14 at 1. Although Petitioner is not in pretrial custody, he alleges that he must 14 remain in Mohave County pending resolution of the 2020 case under his federal conditions 15 of supervised release. Petitioner alleges that having to remain in Mohave County has 16 financially and emotionally burdened him and family members in Florida, where he had 17 relocated after the dismissal of the 2015 case. 18 II. Amended Petition 19 In his Amended Petition, Petitioner names the Mohave County Sheriff’s Department 20 as the only Respondent. Petitioner alleges two grounds for relief. In Ground One, 21 Petitioner alleges that his right to a speedy trial is being violated. In Ground Two, 22 Petitioner alleges violation of his Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights based on the failure 23 of Mohave County officials to promptly lodge a detainer against him once he began serving 24 25 2 Although Petitioner had been questioned by a Kingman detective in 2015, while Petitioner was a pretrial detainee in Nevada, Petitioner alleges that he did not know that he 26 had been charged in Mohave County until the detainer was lodged. 27 3 See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/, search First Name Joshua, Middle Name Daniel, and Last Name Smith (last accessed Feb. 5, 2021). 28 4 Arizona Rules of Evidence. 1 his federal prison sentence, which prevented him from seeking speedy resolution of the 2 Mohave County charge prior to release from federal prison. 3 III. Relief Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 4 Generally, “[c]hallenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars 5 affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus,” whereas a civil rights action is 6 the proper channel for “requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement.” 7 Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004); see Hill v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 573, 579 8 (2006); Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004). Challenges to pretrial incarceration 9 may be properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 10 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). Section 2241(c)(3) provides that “the writ of habeas corpus 11 [extends to persons who are] . . . in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 12 treaties of the United States . . . .” (Emphasis added). However, “federal habeas relief 13 does not lie, absent ‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an affirmative 14 defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state court.” See 15 Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (emphasis 16 added); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining that for reasons 17 of comity, a pretrial detainee must show special circumstances, in addition to the merits of 18 a speedy trial claim, warranting federal intervention in state criminal proceedings and 19 noting that “unlike the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Speedy Trial Clause, when raised as 20 an affirmative defense, does not embody a right which is necessarily forfeited by delaying 21 review until after trial.”); see Politano v. Miller, No. 08cv238, 2008 WL 906300, at *4-5 22 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2008) (finding alleged speedy trial violation did not constitute special 23 circumstance within Braden where petitioner sought dismissal of criminal charges, rather 24 than immediate trial, and had not exhausted claim). 25 In addition, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 26 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing 27 state criminal proceedings. The Younger abstention doctrine also applies while a case 28 works its way through the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans 1| Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited, extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference 3) with ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a 4 prisoner alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 5 | 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed ifa detainee 6| is seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all his state court remedies. Braden, 410 □□□□ at 8 | 489-90; see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 9} & n.5 (st Cir. 2000). 10 To the extent that Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief as to the 2015 Mohave 11 | County case, his Amended Petition will be dismissed because that case is no longer pending against him; it has been dismissed. To the extent that Petitioner seeks habeas corpus relief 13 | as to the 2020 case, Petitioner is not in custody. Further, while Petitioner asserts a speedy trial claim, he is not seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial but seeking the 15 | dismissal of his pending case. For the reasons discussed, the Court will dismiss the Amended Petition and this case. 17| ITIS ORDERED: 18 (1) The Amended Petition (Doc. 4) and this action are dismissed. 19 (2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 20 Dated this 25th day of February, 2021. 21 Wichad T. gibuade Michael T. Liburdi 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28