Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00734/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00734-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

KM 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Rafael Mada-Lastra, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, 

Respondent. 

No. CV 15-0734-PHX-DGC (ESW) 

ORDER 

Petitioner Rafael Mada-Lastra, who is confined in the Maricopa County Fourth 

Avenue Jail, filed a pro se “Petition for Writ of Mandamus,” which the Court construed 

as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In a May 18, 2015 

Order, the Court directed Petitioner to pay the filing fee or file an Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis and dismissed the Petition with leave to amend. 

On June 8, 2015, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition (Doc. 5) and an unsigned 

Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. On June 25, 2015, Petitioner filed 

a “Motion for Verification” in which he asked the Court to verify that it received his 

Amended Petition and Application to Proceed. In a July 21, 2015 Order, the Court 

granted the Motion for Verification and denied the Application to Proceed with leave to 

refile. 

On July 31, 2015, Petitioner filed a new Application to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (Doc. 9). On August 24, 2015, Petitioner filed two Motions for “Final 

Disclosure of All Untried Charges (Docs. 11 and 12). On August 31, 2015, Petitioner 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-DGC--ESW Document 14 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

filed a “Request for Final Disposition of All Charges” (Doc. 13), which appears to seek 

the same relief as the August 24 Motions. 

The Court will dismiss the Amended Petition without prejudice and deny the 

pending Motions as moot. 

I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Petitioner’s July 31 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis indicates that his 

inmate trust account balance is less than $25.00. Accordingly, the Application to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis will be granted. See LRCiv 3.5(b). 

II. Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – Failure to Exhaust State 

Remedies

 Petitioner challenges his ongoing criminal proceedings in Maricopa County 

Superior Court, case # CR 2015-002065-002. Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., provides an 

avenue for habeas corpus relief for a pretrial detainee in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States. “As an exercise of judicial 

restraint, however, federal courts elect not to entertain habeas corpus challenges to state 

court proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state avenues for raising [a] 

federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner has not 

exhausted his state remedies before bringing this habeas corpus action. 

III. Younger Abstention

 The abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing 

criminal proceedings in state court. Absent special circumstances, such as “proven 

harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of 

obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 

irreparable injury can be shown,” a federal court will not entertain a pretrial habeas 

corpus petition. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 

(1971)). “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have 

federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-DGC--ESW Document 14 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.” Id. at 83-

84 (quoting Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)). 

 Petitioner has failed to show special or extraordinary circumstances indicating that 

he will suffer irreparable harm if this Court abstains from hearing his claims until after he 

has a chance to present his claims to the state courts. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46; 

Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-84. This Court, therefore, will abstain from interfering in 

Petitioner’s ongoing state-court criminal proceedings. 

IV. Dismissal Without Prejudice

 The Court will dismiss this action without prejudice. Petitioner may file another 

petition in a new habeas corpus action after all state criminal proceedings are completed 

and available state judicial remedies are exhausted. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d 

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[E]xcept in habeas petitions in life-sentence or capital cases, 

claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once the 

Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.”). 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 9) is granted. 

 (2) Petitioner’s Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus (Doc. 5) and this case are 

dismissed without prejudice. 

 (3) Petitioner’s pending Motions (Docs. 11, 12, and 13) are denied as moot. 

 (4) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 

 Dated this 18th day of September, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00734-DGC--ESW Document 14 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3