Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05565/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05565-0/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)

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEREMY R. JOHNSON,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF 

CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF SONOMA; 

JAMES THISTLEWAITHE,

Respondents.

 /

No. C 06-5565 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Jeremy Johnson filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

At the time he filed his petition, he was incarcerated in the Sonoma County Jail awaiting trial

in the Sonoma County Superior Court. He later was released from jail, as indicated by the notice

of change of address he filed on November 27, 2006, although he did not explain whether his

release was due to an acquittal, dismissal of charges, non-custodial sentence or otherwise. In

his petition, Johnson alleged that he was receiving ineffective assistance of counsel and was

suffering delays and prejudice in his criminal case. 

Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a petition brought under 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3), principles of federalism and comity require that this court abstain until all state

criminal proceedings are completed and petitioner exhausts available judicial state remedies,

unless special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial can be

Case 3:06-cv-05565-SI Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

found. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1980); see also United States

ex rel. Goodman v. Kehl, 456 F.2d 863, 869 (2d Cir. 1972) (pretrial detainees must first exhaust

state remedies); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Only in cases of 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, does the abstention doctrine not bar preconviction federal intervention against pending

state prosecutions. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)).

State criminal proceedings were ongoing and Johnson had not exhausted his available

state remedies before he filed this action. He does not contend his double jeopardy rights have

been or are being violated, so he does not fall under the exception to the general rule of Younger

v. Harris for double jeopardy claims. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.

1992). Neither the alleged ineffective assistance of counsel nor the alleged speedy trial problem

warrant require federal intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings. See Carden, 626 F.2d

at 84 (unlike the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Speedy Trial Clause, when raised as an affirmative

defense, does not embody a right which is necessarily forfeited by delaying review until after

trial). 

This case therefore is DISMISSED. The dismissal is without prejudice to filing a new

petition after he is convicted and after he exhausts state court remedies for all of his claims by

presenting each of those claims to the state's highest court to give that court a fair opportunity

to rule on the merits of his claims. If petitioner has been convicted since the time he filed his

petition, he is cautioned that he may not file multiple petitions; therefore, any new petition must

include all his claims for relief and not just those that pertain to pretrial constitutional violations.

The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-05565-SI Document 3 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2