Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02800/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-02800-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey Ramone Mathis, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-2800-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

On December 28, 2010, Petitioner Jeffrey Ramone Mathis, who is confined in the

Maricopa County Fourth Avenue Jail, filed a “Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 1), which the Court

will construe as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For multiple reasons, this case will

be dismissed without prejudice.

I. Failure to Pay Filing Fee

Section 1914(a), 28 U.S.C., establishes a $5.00 filing fee for applications for a writ

of habeas corpus. Rule 3.5(b) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (LRCiv) requires that

“[i]f a habeas corpus petitioner desires to prosecute the petition in forma pauperis, the

petitioner shall file an application to proceed in forma pauperis on a form approved by the

Court, accompanied by a certification of the warden or other appropriate officer of the

institution in which the petitioner is confined as to the amount of money or securities on

deposit to the petitioner’s credit.” Rule 3.5(b) also requires payment of the $5.00 filing fee

if a petitioner has in excess of $25.00 in his inmate account. Petitioner has not paid the $5.00

filing fee or filed an Application to Proceed.

Case 2:10-cv-02800-JAT--LOA Document 3 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

II. Failure to File on Court-Approved Form

Pursuant to Rule 3.5(a) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner is required

to use a court-approved form when he files a pro se habeas corpus petition. Petitioner has

not done so. 

III. Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

It appears that Petitioner is a pretrial detainee. Relief is therefore unavailable pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which requires that a person be in custody pursuant to a judgment of

a State court. 

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

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).

It does not appear that Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies before bringing this habeas

corpus action.

V. 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, 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)).

Case 2:10-cv-02800-JAT--LOA Document 3 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

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.

VI. Dismissal Without Prejudice

The “Writ of Prohibition” and this action will be dismissed 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 that Petitioner’s “Writ of Prohibition” (Doc. 1) and this action are

dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-02800-JAT--LOA Document 3 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3