Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00598/USCOURTS-azd-2_20-cv-00598-0/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

WO MDR

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Alfred E. Caraffa,

Petitioner, 

v. 

State of Arizona,

Respondent.

No. CV 20-00598-PHX-MTL (ESW)

ORDER

On March 24, 2020, Petitioner Alfred E. Caraffa, who is confined in a Maricopa 

County Jail, filed a pro se “Motion for: Habeas Co[rpu]s Motion for Subp[oe]na” (Doc. 1) 

and a “Motion for: Injunction for Termination of Illegal Prosecution (Habeas 

Corpus)” (Doc. 2). On March 25, 2020, he filed a Motion to Support Habeas 

Corpus (Doc. 4). The Court will dismiss the Motion for Habeas Corpus, deny the Motion 

for Injunction, deny as moot the Motion to Support Habeas Corpus, and dismiss this action.

I. Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petitioner’s state court criminal case discussed in the Petition, Maricopa County 

Superior Court case #CR-2019-155732, is ongoing.1 Relief is therefore unavailable 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which requires that a person be in custody pursuant to a 

judgment of a state court.

. . . .

1 See http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.

asp?caseNumber=CR2019-155732 (last visited Mar. 26, 2020).

Case 2:20-cv-00598-MTL--ESW Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 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

II. Younger Abstention and 28 U.S.C. § 2241

Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., provides an avenue for habeas corpus relief for a pretrial 

detainee in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States. 

“As an exercise of judicial restraint, however, federal courts elect not to entertain habeas 

corpus challenges to state court proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state 

avenues for raising [a] federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). 

Moreover, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 

37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with 

ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. Absent special circumstances, such as 

“proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope 

of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 

irreparable injury can be shown,” a federal court will not entertain a pretrial habeas corpus 

petition. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). 

“[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 and the case concluded in the state courts.” Id. at 83-84 (quoting 

Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)).

Petitioner has failed to show special or extraordinary circumstances indicating that 

he will suffer irreparable harm if this Court abstains from hearing his claims until after he 

has a chance to present his claims to the state courts. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46; 

Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-84. This Court, therefore, will abstain from interfering in 

Petitioner’s ongoing state-court criminal proceedings and will dismiss without prejudice 

the Motion for Habeas Corpus, which includes requests for a subpoena for his criminal 

case file and for an inmate grievance form he submitted in jail. For the same reason, the 

Court will deny Petitioner’s Motion for Injunction, which seeks “an Injunction to stop the 

current illegal prosecution of the [Petitioner] . . . .” 

Because the Court is dismissing the Motion for Habeas Corpus, the Court will deny 

as moot the Motion to Support Habeas Corpus.

Case 2:20-cv-00598-MTL--ESW Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 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

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Motion for: Habeas Co[rpu]s Motion for Subp[oe]na” (Doc. 1) 

and this action are dismissed without prejudice.

(2) Petitioner’s “Motion for: Injunction for Termination of Illegal 

Prosecution” (Doc. 2) is denied without prejudice.

(3) Petitioner’s Motion to Support Habeas Corpus (Doc. 4) is denied as moot.

(4) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

(5) The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable 

jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 825 (9th Cir. 2009) (“a state 

prisoner who is proceeding under § 2241 must obtain a COA under § 2253(c)(1)(A) in 

order to challenge process issued by a state court”).

Dated this 30th day of March, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00598-MTL--ESW Document 5 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 3