Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00944/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00944-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN MICHAEL BRAUSS, Civil

No.

15cv0944-GPC (NLS)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

BILL GORE, San Diego County Sheriff,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. Petitioner requests the Court intervene in ongoing state court criminal and/or

civil commitment proceedings, and complains of conditions of confinement in the San

Diego County Jail. (Pet. at 2-4.) The Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner

has not satisfied the filing fee requirement, has failed to allege exhaustion of state court

remedies, has included claims which are not cognizable on federal habeas, and on

abstention grounds.

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not

provided the Court with sufficient information to determine his financial status. A

-1- 15cv0944

Case 3:15-cv-00944-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/13/15 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

request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a certificate from the warden or other

appropriate officer showing the amount of money orsecurities Petitioner has on account

in the institution where he is confined. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; Local Rule

3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required Certificate. 

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES

Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their conviction or the length of

their confinement, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c);

Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state judicial remedies, a

California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court with a fair

opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal habeas

petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34. Moreover, to properly

exhaust state court remedies a petitioner must allege, in state court, how one or more of

his or her federal rights have been violated. The Supreme Court in Duncan v. Henry, 513

U.S. 364 (1995) reasoned: “If state courts are to be given the opportunity to correct

alleged violations of prisoners’ federal rights, they must surely be alerted to the fact that

the prisoners are asserting claims under the United States Constitution.” Id. at 365-66

(emphasis added). For example, “[i]f a habeas petitioner wishes to claim that an

evidentiary ruling at a state court trial denied him [or her] the due process of law

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, he [or she] must say so, not only in federal

court, but in state court.” Id. at 366 (emphasis added).

Petitioner indicates that he has not exhausted state court remedies because: “The

too big to fail banks have turned the justice system upside down . . . the state courts are

broken and corrupt . . . [and] there is no justice or even a resemblance of due process in

the state courts.” (See Pet. at 7.) The burden of proving that a claim has been exhausted

lies with the petitioner. Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d 1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981); see

also O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (holding that the exhaustion

doctrine is designed to give state court the first opportunity to pass upon alleged

violations ofstate prisoner’s federal rights); Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 672 (9th

-2- 15cv0944

Case 3:15-cv-00944-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/13/15 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

Cir. 1993) (recognizing that the exhaustion doctrine is essentially a matter of federalism

and comity which can be excused only “in rare cases where exceptional circumstances

of peculiar urgency are shown to exist.”), quoting Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134; see also

28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) (“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unlessit appears

that - (A) the applicant has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State;

or (B)(i) there is an absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances

exist that render such process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”)

Petitioner has not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate there is an absence of

state corrective process available to him. He has therefore failed to allege exhaustion as

to the claims presented in the Petition, and it is subject to dismissal. See Rasberry v.

Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district court determines that a

habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not inquire further into the

petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas petition for failure to

exhaust.”), citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 2001). 

ABSTENTION

To the extent Petitioner is challenging ongoing state criminal or civil commitment

proceedings, this Court is barred from consideration of the claims by the abstention

doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal

courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary

circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (stating that Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal

policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”); see

Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that the concerns of

Younger abstention are particularly important in the federal habeas context where a state

prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue

moot.) 

/ / /

-3- 15cv0944

Case 3:15-cv-00944-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/13/15 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

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger isrequired when:

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the

federal issues. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799

(9th Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner’s state case is

still ongoing, there is no question that the state criminal and civil commitment

proceedings involve important state interests, and Petitioner has not shown that he is

unable to petition the state courts for relief. Because Petitioner has not shown

extraordinary circumstances, to the extent he isseeking intervention in his ongoing state

proceedings, abstention is required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.

1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal

interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in,

judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”)

CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT CLAIMS

To the extent Petitioner intended to present claims challenging current or past

conditions of confinement (see Pet. at 4), such claims are not cognizable on federal

habeas. Challenges to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a

writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254; challenges to conditions of

confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser,

411 U.S. at 488-500. When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of

his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled

to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal

remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On the other hand, a § 1983 action is a

proper remedy for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the

conditions of his confinement, but not to the fact or length of his custody. Id. at 499;

Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (“habeasjurisdiction is absent, and

a § 1983 action proper, where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not

necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence.”) To the extent Petitioner intended to

-4- 15cv0944

Case 3:15-cv-00944-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/13/15 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

present claims challenging the conditions of his confinement, but not the fact or length

of his custody, such a claims are not cognizable in a habeas action pursuant to § 2254. 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appearsfromthe face of the petition and any

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” 

Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because he has not satisfied the filing fee

requirement and has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies, and on abstention

grounds.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis and DISMISSES the case due to Petitioner’s failure to satisfy the filing

fee requirement, failure allege exhaustion of state court remedies, and on abstention

grounds. The dismissal is without prejudice. If Petitioner wishes to challenge the fact

or duration of his confinement, he must, no later than June 16, 2014 satisfy the filing

fee requirement and file a First Amended Petition which cures the defects of habeas

pleading identified in this Order. If he wishes to challenge the conditions of his

confinement, he may file a new civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which will

be given a new civil case number. The Clerk of Court shall send Petitioner a blank

Southern District of California amended habeas petition form, a blank Southern District

of California 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Complaint form, and a blank Southern District of

California in forma pauperis application, along with a copy of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

-5- 15cv0944

Case 3:15-cv-00944-GPC-NLS Document 3 Filed 05/13/15 Page 5 of 5