Smith v. District Attorney's Office of San Francisco ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH, #17-00662784, Case No. 20-cv-01474-CRB (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 9 v. CORPUS 10 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, (ECF No. 4) 11 Respondent. 12 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee facing state criminal charges in San Francisco County 13 Superior Court, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the criminal 14 proceedings against him primarily on the grounds that his speedy trial rights are being violated by 15 a lengthy delay in prosecution. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 4) which, good cause shown, is granted. Petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a 17 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. But principles of comity and 18 federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain any such pre-sentence habeas challenge 19 unless petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) 20 “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th 21 Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in 22 bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other special circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state 23 prosecutions appropriate. Id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). Petitioner 24 makes no such showing of “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention. See id. at 84; 25 see also Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal court must abstain from 26 entertaining pre-sentence habeas petition raising speedy trial claim absent special circumstances). 27 The instant pre-sentence habeas petition accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice to 1 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: April 2, 2020 4 A AO CHARLES R. BREYER 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 Q 16 & = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH, 5 Case No. 3:20-cv-01474-CRB Plaintiff, 6 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF 8 || SAN FRANCISCO, 9 Defendant. 10 . . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 11 District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 2, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copyCies) of the attached, by placing 14 said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by 15 depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(es) into an inter-office delivery 16 receptacle located in the Clerk's office. = 17 Z 18 Lewis Francis Smith ID: #17662784 San Francisco County Jail #5 19 1 Moreland Drive San Bruno, CA 94066 20 21 2 Dated: April 2, 2020 Susan Y. Soong 23 Clerk, United States District Court 24 25 By. Tork tra¢ Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 26 Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER 27 28