Stewart v. People of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 THEODORE STEWART, Case No. 23-cv-00714-JD 8 Petitioner, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. — 9 — 10 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF 11 SANTA CLARA, Respondent. — 12 — 13 Theodore Stewart, a state court pretrial detainee, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 14 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . The petition was dismissed with leave to amend, and 15 petitioner filed an amended petition. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 This Court may consider a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in 19 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in 20 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a); Rose v. 21 Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading 22 requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An application for a federal writ of 23 habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court 24 must “specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting 25 each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . “‘[N]otice’ 26 pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility 27 of constitutional error.’” Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 1 LEGAL CLAIMS 2 Petitioner is pending trial in Santa Clara County and asks the Court to intervene in the 3 |} ongoing criminal proceedings. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court may not 4 || interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief 5 absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal 6 || courts will not enjoin or otherwise intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions unless there is 7 a showing of exceptional misconduct such as a prosecution based on bad faith or harassment, or 8 || that the applicable criminal statute is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional 9 || prohibitions.” Id. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of 10 special circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute 11 must be unconstitutional in every “clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner” it is 12 applied). 5 13 Petitioner alleges that the warrant used to arrest him was based on perjured testimony, the 14 || police and district attorney’s office are prosecuting him due to his race, the trial court was 3 15 prejudiced against him due to his race and his public defender is ineffective and is collaborating 16 || with the district attorney’s office. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend for petitioner to 3 17 plausibly allege extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal court intervention. The amended 18 || petition has not cured the deficiencies noted by the Court. Petitioner presents conclusory 19 allegations that fail cross the high threshold of Younger. Consequently, the petition is dismissed 20 || without leave to amend. 21 CONCLUSION 22 The petition is dismissed and a Certificate of Appealability is denied. The Clerk is 23 requested to close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 25, 2023 — 26 — — 27 — 28 JAMES TO United Stf#tes District Judge