Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00284/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00284-0/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 1

 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this action. 

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Miguel (Mike) Mansanares, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0284-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Miguel Mansanares, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, has filed a pro se document captioned “Emergency Application of Habeas

Corpus/Motion for Emergency Stay of State Proceedings 28 U.S.C. 2251; 28 USC

1651(a)/Motion for Counsel to Aid in Filing Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 USC 2241(c)(3); 28

USC 1915(d),” hereafter “Motion.” (Doc.# 1.)1

 On March 3, 2009, Petitioner filed a

“Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody.” (Doc.# 4.) Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee to file a habeas petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc.# 1.) The Court will deny the motion and summarily

dismiss the Petition and this action. 

I. Petition

Petitioner seeks relief with respect to three cases filed in Maricopa County Superior

Case 2:09-cv-00284-MHM--LOA Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 1 of 5
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 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/022009/m3579402.pdf and

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012009/m3538822.pdf.

 3

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/012009/m3537688.pdf.

 4

 Neither Goddard, nor Thomas are properly named Respondents because neither has

custody of Petitioner. A petitioner for habeas relief must name the state officer having

custody of him as a respondent to the petition. Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 354 (9th Cir.

2004) (citing Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994)).

- 2 -

Court, CR2008-119398, CR2008-007665, and CR2008-007673. Plaintiff has been convicted

by a jury of resisting arrest and aggravated assault in CR2008-119398 and sentencing is

currently scheduled for March 18, 2009.2

 The two other cases have yet to be tried.3

Petitioner asserts that he has been held in custody pursuant to invalid arrest warrants since

March 2008. In his Petition, Petitioner names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio,

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew P.

Thomas.4

 

II. Relief Pursuant to § 2241 is Unavailable for a State Conviction

Petitioner in part seeks habeas relief as to a state court conviction. While challenges

to pretrial incarceration may be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a prisoner attacking

a state conviction must seek federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal

habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the “exclusive vehicle” for a state prisoner to

seek relief from a state conviction or sentence in federal court. See White v. Lambert, 370

F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, federal habeas relief for a state conviction is

available “only on the ground that [an inmate] is in custody in violation of the Constitution

or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In addition, a petitioner who

seeks habeas relief from judgments of more than one state court must file a separate petition

covering the judgment or judgments of each court. Rule 2(e), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

To the extent that Petitioner seeks relief as to a state court conviction, he may not

obtain federal habeas relief pursuant to § 2241, but must instead file a new action pursuant

to § 2254. Under this Court’s local rule, a habeas petitioner must use the court-approved

form when he files a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, see LRCiv 3.5(a).

Case 2:09-cv-00284-MHM--LOA Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 2 of 5
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

 5 If a petitioner chooses to seek discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme Court,

however, he must await the conclusion of that review before he may seek federal habeas

relief. See Swoopes, 196 F.3d at 1010; Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir.

1983) (habeas petition prematurely filed where proceedings concerning same claims pending

in state court); Fordjour v. Stewart, 44 Fed. Appx. 789, 789-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (habeas action

may be dismissed as unexhausted and premature when discretionary petition is pending

before the Arizona Supreme Court because relief could be granted that would moot federal

claims). 

- 3 -

Petitioner is further informed of the following: A prisoner attacking a state conviction must

exhaust state remedies before a federal court will entertain a petition for writ of habeas

corpus. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th Cir.

1983). To exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the highest

state court within a state’s standard review process in order to provide the state with an

opportunity to rule on the merits of his federal claims. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); see McQuown v. McCartney, 795 F.2d 807, 809 (9th Cir. 1986);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). An Arizona petitioner sentenced

to less than the death penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them in a

procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of Appeals, either on direct appeal or in

post-conviction proceedings, without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme

Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F.Supp.2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following

1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal

convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf. Swoopes, 196 F.3d at 1010 (citing

pre-1989 statutory amendment); Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005)

(same) Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed to the extent that Petitioner seeks relief as to

a state court conviction in this action.5

III. Pretrial Habeas Relief 

To the extent that Petitioner seeks pretrial habeas relief pursuant to § 2241, his

Petition will be dismissed based upon abstention. Challenges to pretrial incarceration may

be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Section 2241(c)(3) provides that “the writ

of habeas corpus [extends to persons who are] ... in custody in violation of the Constitution

Case 2:09-cv-00284-MHM--LOA Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 3 of 5
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

 6 While a state inmate may seek injunctive or compensatory relief based on violation of

his civil rights, he must do so in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not in a habeas

petition. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.

749, 750 (2004); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). 

- 4 -

or laws or treaties of the United States . . . .” See McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824

n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden v. State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980) (“district

court had jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to issue [a] pretrial writ of habeas corpus”).

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

prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing state

criminal proceedings. The Younger abstention doctrine also applies while a case works its

way through the state appellate process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv.,

Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited,

extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with

ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a prisoner

alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d

1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is seeking

to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the

detainee has exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court

of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of

Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000). 

In this case, Petitioner alleges that he was arrested pursuant to invalid warrants and

he seeks a stay of pending state criminal proceedings. He also asserts violation of various

federal civil rights statutes.6

 These grounds do not fall within the very limited circumstances

in which a federal court may intercede in ongoing state criminal proceedings under the

Younger doctrine. For that reason, the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice and

without leave to amend to the extent that Petitioner seeks pretrial habeas relief.

Case 2:09-cv-00284-MHM--LOA Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Emergency Application for Habeas Corpus is denied. (Doc.#1.)

(2) The Petition and this action are dismissed. (Doc.# 4.) 

DATED this 16th day of March, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00284-MHM--LOA Document 5 Filed 03/17/09 Page 5 of 5