Briand Williams v. Gregory Totten

FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
BRIAND WILLIAMS, No. 08-56333
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00381-AHM
v. Central District of California,
Los Angeles
GREGORY D. TOTTEN, District
Attorney for Ventura County; et al.,
ORDER
Respondents - Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The memorandum disposition filed on September 3, 2010, is withdrawn.
A replacement memorandum disposition will be filed concurrently with this
order.
Williams' petition for panel rehearing is denied.
No further filings shall be accepted in this closed case.
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO U RT OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAND WILLIAMS, No. 08-56333
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00381-AHM
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GREGORY D. TOTTEN, District
Attorney for Ventura County; et al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Former California state pretrial detainee Briand Williams appeals from the
district court's judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. y 2241 habeas petition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. y 2253, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Williams contends that his right to a speedy trial was violated in his
underlying state prosecution, and that the underlying prosecution was undertaµen
in bad faith or with a retaliatory purpose, such that the general rule of abstention
set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) does not apply. Williams
further argues that the district court did not consider whether the bad faith
exception applied. Because the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting bad
faith or some other extraordinary circumstance that would maµe abstention
inappropriate, the district court correctly concluded that abstention was proper.
See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 435
(1982); see also Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980) (concluding
that federal intervention is appropriate '[o]nly in cases of proven harassment or
prosecutions undertaµen 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 relief against pending state
prosecutions appropriate.').
Totten's request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56333