Smith v. District Attorney's Office of San Francisco

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH, #17-00662784, Case No. 20-cv-01474-CRB (PR) 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS 9 v. CORPUS 10 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, (ECF No. 4) 11 Respondent. 12 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee facing state criminal charges in San Francisco County 13 Superior Court, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the criminal 14 proceedings against him primarily on the grounds that his speedy trial rights are being violated by 15 a lengthy delay in prosecution. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 16 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 4) which, good cause shown, is granted. Petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a [17] petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . But principles of comity and [18] federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain any such pre-sentence habeas challenge [19] unless petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) 20 “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th 21 Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in 22 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 [23] prosecutions appropriate. Id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). Petitioner [24] makes no such showing of “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention. See id. at 84 ; [25] see also Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (federal court must abstain from 26 entertaining pre-sentence habeas petition raising speedy trial claim absent special circumstances). 27 The instant pre-sentence habeas petition accordingly is DISMISSED without prejudice to 1 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: April 2, 2020 4 A AO CHARLES R. BREYER 5 United States District Judge [15] Q 16 & = 17 Z 18 [1] 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [4] LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH, 5 Case No. 3:20-cv-01474-CRB Plaintiff, [6] 5 v. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE OF 8 || SAN FRANCISCO, 9 Defendant. 10 . . . I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. [11] District Court, Northern District of California. That on April 2, 2020, I SERVED a true and correct copyCies) of the attached, by placing [14] said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by [15] depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(es) into an inter-office delivery [16] receptacle located in the Clerk's office. = 17 Z 18 Lewis Francis Smith ID: #17662784 San Francisco County Jail #5 19 1 Moreland Drive San Bruno, CA 94066 [21] 2 Dated: April 2, 2020 Susan Y. Soong 23 Clerk, United States District Court [24] 25 By. Tork tra¢ Lashanda Scott, Deputy Clerk to the 26 Honorable CHARLES R. BREYER