Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00006/USCOURTS-cand-1_16-cv-00006-1/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 OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights action filed pro se by a detainee incarcerated at San Francisco

County Jail. It is difficult to discern plaintiff’s claims. Though he filed a civil rights action, 

plaintiff seeks habeas corpus relief and he appears to be a pre-trial detainee. He discusses

police interrogations, false police reports, and anti-psychotic medication. For relief he

seeks to be released from custody. The court ordered plaintiff to show cause why this case

should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Plaintiff

has not filed a response or otherwise communicated with the court.

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, 401 U.S. at 43-54. 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

Case 1:16-cv-00006-NJV Document 4 Filed 03/24/16 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

1

 Nor has plaintiff shown that any claim has been exhausted if he has already been

convicted and the court were to construe the filing as a habeas petition.

2

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 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).

Plaintiff has failed to respond and a review of his complaint does not indicate

extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal court intervention.1

 The complaint is

DISMISSED and all pending motions are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2016. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:16-cv-00006-NJV Document 4 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 2