Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01784-0/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 

19cv1784 MMA (RBB) 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICA D. HAYWOOD, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., 

Respondents. 

 Case No.: 19cv1784 MMA (RBB) 

ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 

and (2) DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

 Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

Petitioner has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis but she has not provided 

the Court with sufficient information to determine her financial status. A request to 

proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate from the 

warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money or securities Petitioner 

has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule 3.2. 

Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required Prison Certificate. 

ABSTENTION 

 In any event, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is 

barred from consideration of the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

19cv1784 MMA (RBB) 

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

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see 

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) 

(Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with 

pending state judicial proceedings.”). These concerns are particularly important in the 

habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby 

rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 

1983). 

 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important 

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the 

federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th 

Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the 

instant Petition, she states she was arrested on August 14, 2019, and that her preliminary 

hearing is “in schedule.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2, 10.) Thus, Petitioner’s criminal case is 

still ongoing in the state courts. Further, there is no question that the state criminal 

proceedings involve important state interests. 

 Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that she has not been afforded an adequate 

opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to 

support a contention that the state courts do not provide her an adequate opportunity to 

raise her claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Indeed, 

Petitioner’s claims of false arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel are the type of 

claims that state courts provide an opportunity to raise on direct appeal. Abstention is 

therefore required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[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 that the case concluded in the state courts.”) Petitioner has failed to 

demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

19cv1784 MMA (RBB) 

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

obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Juidice v. 

Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may 

not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.) 

CLAIMS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

 Additionally, some of the claims Petitioner raises in her Petition are not properly 

brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Title 28, United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth 

the following scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:

 The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a district 

court shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a 

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the 

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 

treaties of the United States. 

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 

In claims two and three, Petitioner claims “jail conditions are hostile, irritable, 

unhealthy, and low functioning.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 7.) She also alleges that “jail 

medical refuses to honor [her] records of diabetes and administer treatment.” (Id.) She 

complains about a lack of access to special religious diets, lack of healthy food, 

recreation, showers, legal research materials, sanitation, and mental health resources. 

(Id.) She also alleges that “gender variant inmates are not given much to maintain gender 

identity,” there are “no gender variant support resources or housing . . . safely available in 

jail.” (Id. at 8.) These claims do not allege Petitioner is “in custody in violation of the 

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” and are not cognizable on habeas 

because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See

28 U.S.C. 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 

512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). 

Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement 

are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 

488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

19cv1784 MMA (RBB) 

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

imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate 

release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of 

habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a 

state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his prison life, 

but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499; McIntosh v. United States Parole 

Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811-12 (10th Cir. 1997). 

CONCLUSION 

 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis and DISMISSES this action without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to 

pursue her claims regarding the conditions of her confinement, she must file a new civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will be given a new case number. The 

Clerk of Court shall mail Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint form pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 together with a copy of this Order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 24, 2019

 _____________________________ 

 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:19-cv-01784-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 09/24/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4