Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05865/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-05865-0/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)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KYLE PUCKETT,

Petitioner, 

 v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, 

Respondents /

No. C 19-5865 WHA (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner is currently facing criminal proceedings in San Francisco County Superior

Court. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and motions for injunctive relief arguing

that his constitutional rights to due process, to a speedy trial, to a fair prosecutor, and to

effective representation by counsel are being violated. He seeks to “freeze” the criminal

proceedings, remove the prosecutor and judge, and to be released from custody. 

A federal court has authority to entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by a

person in custody, but not yet convicted or sentenced. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824

n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). Such a person brings his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Ibid.

The petition must be dismissed and the motions for injunctive relief must be denied

because principles of federalism and comity require that a federal court abstain until all state

criminal proceedings are completed and petitioner exhausts available judicial state remedies to

the California appellate and supreme courts. 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). The dismissal of these claims is

without prejudice to petitioner filing them in federal court after his trial court proceedings have

Case 3:19-cv-05865-WHA Document 13 Filed 11/13/19 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

concluded, and she has presented her claims through all available state court appeals. 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without

prejudice, and the motions for injunctive relief, for appointment of counsel, and for the State to

pay transcripts are DENIED. 

No certificate of appealability is warranted in this case because a reasonable jurist would

not find the dismissal of this petition debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000).

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November , 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-05865-WHA Document 13 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 2