Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00006/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

RICHARD DENNIS ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 16-0006 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE

This is a civil rights action filed pro se by a detainee at San Francisco County Jail. It

is difficult to discern plaintiff’s claims. Though this was filed as a civil rights action, plaintiff

seeks habeas relief. He discusses police interrogations, false police reports, and antipsychotic medication. The relief he seeks is to be released from custody. 

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal

courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's

bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently

violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost,

anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or

irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be

unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is

applied). Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary circumstance" that (1) the

party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will

suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d

Case 1:16-cv-00006-NJV Document 3 Filed 01/21/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is

incompetent by reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973). A

party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those

serving as adjudicators. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708,

713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

Before he may challenge either the fact or length of his confinement in a habeas

petition in this court, petitioner must present to the California Supreme Court any claims he

wishes to raise in this court. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 522 (1982) (holding every

claim raised in federal habeas petition must be exhausted). The general rule is that a

federal district court must dismiss a federal habeas petition containing any claim as to

which state remedies have not been exhausted. Id. 

If plaintiff is a pretrial detainee challenging ongoing state criminal proceedings he

shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger. If plaintiff

has already been convicted he must clarify the circumstances of his conviction and

demonstrate that he has exhausted his state remedies to any claims he presents.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff shall show cause by within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of

this order why this case should not be dismissed. Failure to reply will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00006-NJV Document 3 Filed 01/21/16 Page 2 of 2