(HC) Craig v. Foxworthy ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, No. 2:21-cv-1261-JAM-EFB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 FOXWORTHY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner commenced this action while confined to a county jail as a pretrial detainee. 18 ECF No. 1 at 2. He proceeds without counsel and seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 19 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging that he is being “malicious[ly]” prosecuted and that his conditions of 20 confinement are unlawful.1 ECF No. 1 at 3, 4. As discussed below, the court will recommend 21 that the petition be dismissed. See Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary 22 dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 1 Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 10. That request is 27 granted and the February 9, 2022 findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action for petitioner’s failure to either pay the filing fee or seek leave to proceed in forma 28 pauperis (ECF No. 8), are withdrawn. 1 To the extent petitioner is awaiting trial as a pretrial detainee, the court must abstain from 2 considering his malicious prosecution claim while his state proceedings are active. See Younger 3 v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not enjoin pending state 4 criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 49, 53. Younger 5 abstention prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction when three criteria are met: 1) there are 6 ongoing state judicial proceedings; 2) an important state interest is involved; and 3) there is an 7 adequate opportunity to raise the federal question at issue in the state proceedings. H.C. ex rel. 8 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). The petition indicates that petitioner is 9 awaiting trial in the El Dorado County Superior Court in case number P21CRF0213. ECF No. 1 10 at 2. Without question, state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests, and 11 California state courts provide an adequate forum in which petitioner may pursue his claims 12 regarding his pending charges. 13 To the extent petitioner also challenges the conditions of his confinement as opposed to 14 the legality or duration of his confinement, his claims are not cognizable in this federal habeas 15 action and must be dismissed. Federal courts offer two main avenues to relief on complaints 16 related to one’s imprisonment – a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and a 17 civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Challenges to the validity of one’s 18 confinement or the duration of one’s confinement are properly brought in a habeas action, 19 whereas requests for relief turning on the circumstances of one’s confinement are properly 20 brought in a § 1983 action. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (citing Preiser v. 21 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) (“[A] district court shall 22 entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 23 the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the 24 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of 25 the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 10) is 3 granted; 4 2. The February 9, 2022 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8) are withdrawn; 5 Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus 6 | be dismissed. 7 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 8 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 9 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 10 | objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 11 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 12 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 13 | Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 14 | his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 15 | event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 16 | § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 17 | final order adverse to the applicant). 18 | Dated: March 16, 2022. 19 □□ PDEA EDMUND F. BRENNAN 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28