- 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-1308 KJM CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 ADAMS, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a Napa State Hospital detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has paid the filing fee. 19 On March 8, 2022, the court recommended that this action be dismissed for plaintiff’s 20 failure to update his address. A review of the record before the court including the objections 21 filed by petitioner on March 16, 2022, reveals petitioner did keep the court apprised of his 22 address. Accordingly, the court’s March 8, 2022 findings and recommendations will be vacated. 23 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 24 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 25 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review. 26 First, petitioner asserts claims concerning conditions of confinement at the El Dorado 27 County Jail while he was a pretrial detainee. Conditions of confinement claims generally must be 28 ///// 1 raised in an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, not a petition for writ of 2 habeas corpus. Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016). There does not appear to 3 be any reason to deviate from that rule here. 4 As for any claim concerning the fact or duration of his confinement, which is a proper 5 habeas claim, id., petitioner asserts he was falsely arrested and subject to exorbitant bail. 6 But, federal courts cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary 7 circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 8 (1971). Irreparable injury does not exist in such situations if the threat to plaintiff’s federally 9 protected rights may be eliminated by his defense of the criminal case. Moreover, “even 10 irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with the proceeding] unless it is ‘both 11 great and immediate.’” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243-44 (1926)). 12 “The Younger doctrine was borne of the concern that federal court injunctions might 13 unduly hamper a state in its prosecution of criminal laws.” Miofsky v. Superior Court, 703 F.2d 14 332, 336 (9th Cir. 1983). In practical terms, the Younger doctrine means that “‘only in the most 15 unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or 16 habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case 17 concluded in the state courts.’” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.) (quoting Drury 18 v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980). 19 Here, petitioner does not present the extraordinary circumstances necessary for this court 20 to be justified in reviewing ongoing state court proceedings. 21 Also, before this court can grant habeas relief as to any claim, the claim must be presented 22 to and rejected by the California Supreme Court. See Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 23 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1986). That has not occurred. 24 For these reasons, the court will recommend that petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas 25 corpus be summarily dismissed and this case be closed. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED the court’s March 8, 2022 findings and 27 recommendations are vacated. 28 ///// 1 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 3 2. This case be closed. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 6 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 7 || objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 8 | Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address whether a 9 || certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this 10 || case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 11 || deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 12 || here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 13 || issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 14 | district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 15 || debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 16 || v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 17 | (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 18 || the nght to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 19 | Dated: March 22, 2022 □□ / dp ai 20 CAROLYNK. DELANEY 21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 | 4 crail308.114 26 27 28
Document Info
Docket Number: 2:21-cv-01308
Filed Date: 3/22/2022
Precedential Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/20/2024