From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Whitsitt v. People

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 12, 2021
2:21-cv-00871 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-00871 GGH P

07-12-2021

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.


ORDER

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the court is petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order. ECF No. 9.

In the pending motion, petitioner seeks an order from this court prohibiting San Joaquin County Superior Court from proceeding on false charges based on fabricated facts and evidence. Petitioner alleges the current charges against him in state court are due to an ongoing RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act”) conspiracy to have him falsely convicted. Petitioner alleges he is being targeted based on retaliation due to his involvement as a RICO whistleblower. Petitioner asserts participants in the RICO conspiracy include “over 250 participants; that include 23 judges, 4 D.A.'s [(District Attorneys)], over 75 Stockton police officers, shift and division chiefs, investigators” and various law enforcement and correctional officials from San Joaquin County Jail, where petition is currently housed. ECF No. 9 at 3. Petitioner requests this court to interfere with an ongoing criminal proceeding against him in state court. In addition, petitioner asserts that the doctrine of abstention, limiting federal courts from interfering with state criminal proceedings, is not appropriate here due to existence of extraordinary circumstances.

The undersigned has recommended in a Findings and Recommendations dated June 4, 2021, ECF No. 7, that this case be summarily dismissed without prejudice. If that recommendation is accepted, the preliminary injunction, which would grant the relief petitioner seeks in this habeas action, is mooted. There is no point in ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction at this time. It will be ordered vacated from this court's calendar, and only placed back on calendar if the Findings and Recommendations regarding dismissal are not adopted.

Accordingly, petitioner's motion for preliminary injunction and/or restraining order (ECF No. 9) is vacated from calendar. The Clerk shall remove the “pending motion” gavel from the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Whitsitt v. People

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jul 12, 2021
2:21-cv-00871 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)
Case details for

Whitsitt v. People

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM J. WHITSITT, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jul 12, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-00871 GGH P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 12, 2021)