(HC) Toft v. D'Agostini

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 DAVID TOFT, No. 2:22-cv-0016 DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 JOHN D’AGOSTINI, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. [16] 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee housed at the El Dorado County Jail, filed a petition for a 18 writ of habeas corpus and an affidavit in support of an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 Examination of the affidavit reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action. Leave to 20 proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (a). Because petitioner is a pretrial 21 detainee, the court construes the petition as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 22 I. Petitioner’s Allegations 23 Petitioner seeks relief pertaining to the bail process or the amount set for bail in his state 24 criminal case. (ECF No. 1 at 3.) Petitioner alleges he has been out on bail but has also been jailed 25 five times, including three times when he showed up to court. (Id.) He alleges he paid $87.00 to [26] 27 1 As a pretrial detainee, petitioner is not in custody “pursuant to the judgment of a state court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , and therefore brings his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3). McNeely v. 28 Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 , 824 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 be on the court docket and was still jailed (Id.) And further, “sometimes I have no bail amount. 2 Other weeks it’s $50.00 or 100,000 now it’s $150.00 for bail.” (Id.) Petitioner also states he was 3 “posted county’s most wanted” and lost his job. (Id.) 4 II. Applicable 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Screening Standards 5 The court has authority to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 6 custody who is not yet convicted or sentenced. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 , 824 n. 1 7 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3). Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a 8 petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (c)(3), principles of federalism and comity require that 9 this court abstain and not entertain a pretrial habeas challenge unless the petitioner shows: (1) 10 exhaustion of available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal 11 intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 , 83-84 & n. 1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 12 1014 (1980); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 13 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not 14 interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief 15 absent extraordinary circumstances). 16 In screening the habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , the court applies the 17 Rule 4 framework of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 18 Courts. See 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 4; see also Id., Rule 1(b) (“The district court may apply 19 any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a).”). If it plainly 20 appears from the petition, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the 21 moving party is not entitled to relief, then the petition must be dismissed. Id., Rule 4. 22 The court may summarily dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus on its own motion 23 after providing the petitioner with adequate notice and an opportunity to respond. Herbst v. Cook, [24] 260 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). A court should not dismiss a petition for habeas corpus 25 without leave to amend unless it appears no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such 26 leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (per curiam). 27 //// 28 //// 1 III. Discussion 2 Petitioner does not allege to have exhausted state remedies. Nothing about the petitioner’s 3 allegations suggest an exception to the exhaustion requirement is warranted. In addition, the 4 petition does not allege special circumstances that would warrant federal intervention. The 5 exception for “special circumstances” is limited to “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 6 undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps 7 in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive 8 relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971); 9 Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 . 10 Petitioner’s allegations concerning bail matters can and should be addressed by the state 11 courts prior to any review by this court. See, e.g., Dudley v. Niell, No. 3:15-CV-1434-D-BK, [12] 2015 WL 6855635 , at *4 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2015) (“[A] challenge to the reasonableness of a 13 pretrial bond is cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action after exhaustion of state court 14 remedies.”), rep. and rec. adopted, 2015 WL 6809296 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2015) Lazarus v. Baca, 15 No. CV 10-1423 GHK (FFM), 2010 WL 1006572 , at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010) (court abstains 16 from considering bail claim prior to exhaustion in state court, noting “state proceedings provide 17 petitioner with an adequate opportunity to litigate her constitutional claims.”), aff’d, 389 F. App’x 18 700 (9th Cir. 2010); Peterson v. Contra Costa County Sup. Ct., No. C03-5534 MMC (PR), 2004 19 WL 443457 , at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2004) (abstaining on Younger grounds pretrial detainee’s 20 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 of violation of right to reasonable bail). 21 Petitioner has not exhausted state court remedies and petitioner’s bail situation does not 22 involve the type of “unusual circumstances” that might justify an exception to Younger 23 abstention. See Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-34 . For these reasons, the § 2241 petition should be 24 dismissed without prejudice. 25 IV. Conclusion and Order 26 In accordance with the above, IT IS ORDERED: 27 1. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 5) is granted; and 28 2. The Clerk of the Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 1 In ADDITION, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED: 2 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice; and 3 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this 5 || case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1). Within twenty-one (21) days after being 6 || served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the 7 || court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 8 Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 9 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 10 | 1991). 11 || DATED: April 7, 2022 Man?» 12 |) pia7 10f10016.sern.fr BORAH BARNES 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE