(HC) Whitsitt v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Case No. 2:21-cv-02019-JDP (HC) 10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE AMENDED PETITION BE 11 v. DISMISSED 12 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ECF No. 22 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 16 § 2241. He is a pretrial detainee and argues that the state has violated his rights by holding him 17 for over ten months “for competency-treatment training.” ECF No. 22 at 3. I find, for the 18 reasons stated below, that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) requires that I abstain from 19 considering petitioner’s claims. 20 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 21 Governing Section 2241 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 22 examine the habeas petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is 23 not entitled to relief. 1 See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. 24 Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee. ECF No. 22 at 3. He argues that he is entitled to release 26 because he has been waiting ten months for “competency-treatment training.” Id. Petitioner 27 1This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules 28 Governing § 2254 Cases. 1 | admits that he has not attempted to exhaust this claim in the state courts, however. /d. Under 2 | Younger, federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings absent 3 | “extraordinary circumstances.” 401 U.S. 37, 45.7 The allegations at bar do not meet this 4 | standard. Petitioner has not explained why the state courts are incapable of addressing his claims. 5 | Moreover, his allegations are akin to a speedy trial claim, which the Ninth Circuit has held is best 6 || reviewed after the trial is concluded. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980). 7 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to rule 8 | on these findings and recommendations. 9 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 22, be DISMISSED 10 | without leave to amend and the petition for writ of mandate, ECF No. 25, be DENIED as moot. 11 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 12 | presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 13 | Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 14 | of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 15 | findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 16 | must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 17 | District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 18 | § 636(b)1)(C). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( - Dated: _ April 6, 2022 22 JEREMY D. PETERSON 54 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 > In Perez vy. Ledesma, the Supreme Court explained that federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions was appropriate “[o|nly in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 27 | undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive 28 | relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).