Briand Williams v. Gregory Totten

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
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. § 2241 habeas petition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 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 undertaken
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. Contrary to Williams’ contentions, the district court properly
concluded that Williams failed to demonstrate that his prosecution was undertaken
in bad faith, where the record is devoid of any evidence suggesting bad faith or
some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.
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 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 relief against pending state
prosecutions appropriate.”).
Totten’s request for judicial notice is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 08-56333