Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06747/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06747-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEWIS FRANCIS SMITH,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-06747-EMC 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Docket No. 1

Lewis Francis Smith, a pretrial detainee1at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro 

se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint is now before the court for review 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

Mr. Smith alleges in his complaint that his defense attorney has provided ineffective 

assistance by failing to move to dismiss charges against him and that the prosecution is precluded 

from refiling a petition to remand him into custody. He also alleges that the statute of limitations 

for some crime has expired. Docket No. 1 at 3. The defendants are the San Francisco District 

Attorney’s Office, the San Francisco District Attorney, and Mr. Smith’s public defender. Id. at 2. 

For relief, Mr. Smith requests that the charges against him be dismissed and that he be released 

from custody immediately. Id. at 3. 

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner 

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 

 

1 The San Francisco County Sheriff’s inmate-locator website provides the following information: 

Mr. Smith was first booked on February 27, 2017, and is scheduled for his next court hearing on 

May 8, 2019. The charges pending against him are for assault, domestic violence, and making 

criminal threats. See http://apps.sfgov.org/InmateInfo/ (last visited Mar. 12, 2019).

Case 3:18-cv-06747-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review the court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any 

claims which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 

seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b). 

Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 

696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990).

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two elements: (1) that a 

right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated and (2) that the 

violation was committed by a person acting under the color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 

U.S. 42, 48 (1988).

The complaint, liberally construed, challenges the lawfulness of the criminal proceedings 

pending against Mr. Smith. The § 1983 complaint cannot proceed because the claims must be 

made in a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Habeas is the “exclusive remedy” for the prisoner 

who seeks “‘immediate or speedier release’” from confinement. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 

525 (2011) (quoting Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 82 (2005)); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 500 (1973).

This court has authority to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in 

custody, but not yet convicted or sentenced. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 2003); Application of Floyd, 413 F. Supp. 574, 576 (D. Nev. 1976). Such a person is not in 

custody “pursuant to the judgment of a state court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and therefore brings his 

petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) rather than § 2254. McNeely, 336 F.3d at 824 n.1. 

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 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). 

Therefore, this action for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed. The dismissal is 

Case 3:18-cv-06747-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

without prejudice to Mr. Smith filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus after he exhausts state 

remedies if he is ever convicted or after he exhausts state court remedies if he can demonstrate 

special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial. 

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 14, 2019

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-06747-EMC Document 9 Filed 03/14/19 Page 3 of 3