(HC) James v. People of the State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:21-CV-1005-TLN-DMC-P 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s amended petition 20 for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 15, filed as of right and which supersedes the amended 21 petition at ECF No. 14. 22 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary 23 dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 24 annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it 25 is plain that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief. 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Petitioner makes clear that he is a pre-trial detainee awaiting a trial in state court 2 | oncriminal charges. See ECF No. 15, pg. 2. Petitioner appears to be raising various 3 | constitutional claims relating to his arrest and the resulting underlying criminal prosecution. 4 | Principles of comity and federalism require that this Court abstain and not entertain Petitioner's 5 | pre-conviction habeas challenge unless he shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state 6 || judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. See Carden v. 7 | Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 8 | undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and limited 9 | other special circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief 10 | against pending state prosecutions appropriate. See id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 11 | 82,85 (1971)). In his amended petition, Petitioner makes no such showing of “special 12 || circumstances” warranting federal intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is 13 | completed. See id. 14 Accordingly, this Court should abstain and dismiss this action without prejudice. 15 || The alleged problems that Petitioner claims he is enduring are matters that can and should be 16 | addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before he 17 | seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus. 18 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner’s amended 19 | petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 15, be summarily dismissed. 20 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 21 | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 22 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 23 | objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of 24 | objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See 25 | Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 26 | Dated: August 27, 2021 Sx