Opinion
2:21-CV-1534-TLN-DMC-P
12-06-2021
STEVEN EDGAR, also known as Norman J. Craig, Petitioner, v. JOHN DAGOSTINI, et al., Respondents.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Pending before the Court is Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” In the instant case, it is plain that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee. See ECF No. 1, pg. 2. According to Petitioner, he was arrested without probable cause. See id. at 3. Petitioner also asserts ineffective assistance of his appointed counsel based on counsel's alleged refusal to investigate the case. See id. at 4.
Principles of comity and federalism require that this Court abstain and not entertain Petitioner's pre-conviction habeas challenge unless he shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.1980). Only 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 special circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate. See id at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). In his petition, Petitioner makes no such showing of “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is completed. See id Nor does Petitioner indicate that he has exhausted state court remedies. Petitioner specifically states in the petition that he has not presented his claims to any state court. See ECF No. 1, pg. 5.
Accordingly, this Court should abstain and dismiss this action without prejudice. The alleged problems that Petitioner claims he is enduring are matters that can and should be addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before he seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, be summarily dismissed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).