Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00427/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00427-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

ROBERT FRANK MANSUETTO,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM D. GORE, Sheriff of San 

Diego County,

Respondents.

Case No.: 18cv427-CAB-MDD

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND 

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

On February 25, 2018, Petitioner Robert Frank Mansueto, a pretrial detainee who 

is awaiting trial in San Diego Superior Court, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, requesting that the Court order Respondent to dismiss the 

eight felony counts against Petitioner in People of the State of California v. Robert Frank 

Mansueto, Case No. SCD 267665. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner alleges that the charges are 

brought on by an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, constitute harassment, are frivolous, 

undertaken with no reasonably objective hope of success, and were motivated by 

Petitioner’s suspect class and in retaliation for Petitioner exercising his constitutional

rights. [Doc. No. 1 at 4-5.] On March 5, 2018, Petitioner also filed a motion to stay the 

state court proceedings. [Doc. No. 3.]

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

On March 21, 2018, Respondent filed a response to the petition, and lodged 

portions of the state court record. [Doc. Nos. 5 and 6.] On April 9, 2018, Petitioner filed 

a traverse. [Doc. No. 7.] For the reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed 

without prejudice.1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The San Diego County District Attorney has charged Petitioner in an information 

containing multiple counts alleging practicing dentistry without a license2(and thereby 

causing great bodily injury to one victim), practicing dentistry under a false name, 

providing unlawful medical treatment, grand theft, and petty theft, in violation of various 

provisions of the California Penal Code and the California Business and Professions 

Code. [Doc. No. 6-1 (information).] The information was filed on February 28, 2017. 

That prosecution has been and remains ongoing. [See Doc. No. 6-2 (trial court minute 

orders), entry for March 8, 2018 (trial date continued while various motions in limine are 

litigated).]

Pursuant to California procedure, before the information issued, a lengthy

preliminary hearing took place, at which witnesses gave testimony and exhibits were 

introduced. [Doc. Nos. 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5.] During the preliminary hearing, evidence was 

introduced that on at least one occasion Petitioner performed an examination and 

rendered a diagnosis and treatment plan in California prior to personally transporting the 

patient to his clinic in Mexico. [Id. at 204-206.] At the conclusion of the preliminary 

hearing, counsel for Petitioner asked the court to not bind Petitioner over for trial, arguing 

that Petitioner had done no dental work in California. [Id. at 387-95.] The court ruled that 

there were sufficient contacts in California to establish jurisdiction over the alleged 

offenses and enough evidence to proceed with prosecution. [Id. at 402-07.]

 

1 The motion to stay [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.

2 Petitioner lost his license to practice dentistry in California several years ago. [See Doc. No. 6-6 at 4.]

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

Petitioner challenged these rulings by the means established in California Penal 

Code section 995, asking for dismissal of all charges other than those alleging theft, 

arguing again that California had no jurisdiction over Petitioner’s conduct in Mexico. 

[Doc. No. 6-7 at 4: 10-13.] The superior court denied this challenge, explaining that the 

practice of dentistry must be viewed as a continuing act, one that cannot be artificially 

separated into component parts. [Doc. No. 6-7 at 4: 13-15.]

In mid-July 2017, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California 

Court of Appeal, case number D072453. [Doc. No. 6-9.] Petitioner argued, inter alia: (1) 

relief was appropriate to prevent a prosecution for laws that do not apply to Petitioner and 

his conduct because the California statutes do not apply to someone “authorized to 

practice dentistry in Mexico pursuant to a license obtained in accordance with Mexican 

law” (id. at 20); and (2) even if those statutes are interpreted to apply, prosecution under 

such statutes should be foreclosed because, if the statutes permit such an interpretation, 

they are void for vagueness, in violation of the constitutional right to due process. (Id. at 

26.) The court of appeal denied the petition on July 17, 2017. [Doc. No. 6-10.] Petitioner

sought further review from the California Supreme Court, but that court declined further 

review on August 30, 2017. [Doc. No. 6-11.]

In early November 2017, Petitioner moved in the trial court for dismissal of all 

charges alleging violations of the California Business and Professions Code, pursuant to 

California Penal Code section 1385 (in the furtherance of justice); in the same motion, 

Petitioner sought to disqualify the prosecuting deputy district attorney. [Doc. No. 6-12.]

Disqualification was denied by the trial court on November 29. [Doc. No. 6-2 at 17 

(minute for November 29, 2017.] On that same date, the trial court took up additional 

motions in limine. [Doc. No. 6-13.] Again, the trial court ruled that it could exercise

jurisdiction over the crimes alleged, even though some pertinent acts took place outside 

California. [Doc. No. 6-2 at 1 (minute entry for January 8, 2018); Doc. No. 6-13 at 3-7 

(prosecutor’s argument in support).]

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

Thereafter, on February 26 and 27, and on March 5, 6, and 8, 2018, the trial court 

conducted hearings regarding the status of Petitioner as a dentist in Mexico. [Doc. No. 6-

2 at 1-11 (minute entries for those dates).] The most recent entry in the court minutes 

submitted by Respondent indicates that this issue was continued for further examination 

until March 12. [Doc. No. 6-2 at 1.]

DISCUSSION

Petitioner argues he is being prosecuted for alleged crimes under state law that do 

not apply to dentists practicing legally in Mexico, and this is a “fundamental 

jurisdictional error.” [Dc. No. 1 at 4.] Petitioner also argues that he is being harassed by 

the prosecutor and singled out for prosecution, and points to other dentists who allegedly 

advertise in the United States and practice in Mexico but are not being prosecuted. [Doc. 

No. 7 at 3-7.]

Federal courts generally abstain from interfering with pending state criminal 

proceedings before the entry of a judgment of conviction. Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. In 

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971), the Supreme Court strictly limited a 

federal court's ability to intervene in an ongoing state criminal proceeding. A federal 

court must abstain from addressing an asserted violation of a federal constitutional right 

where (1) state judicial proceedings are still pending, (2) the state proceedings implicate 

important state interests, and (3) the state proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to 

put forward the federal question. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar 

Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of 

the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223–24 (9th Cir.1994). All three elements must be 

present in order for abstention to be appropriate. Agriesti v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc., 53 

F.3d 1000, 1001 (9th Cir.1995).

Only when a person subject to state criminal prosecution can show that he will 

suffer irreparable injury, which is both great and immediate, may intervention be 

warranted. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. at 46. Irreparable injury has been found where a 

state is attempting to hold a second trial after a defendant has been tried on the same 

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

offense, Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir.1992). Special circumstances 

which might warrant federal intervention before trial also include proven harassment and 

bad faith prosecutions. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1980). However, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that in the absence of irreparable injury or a bad faith prosecution, 

“abstention principles generally require a federal district court to abstain from exercising 

jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises a claim under the Speedy 

Trial Clause as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.” Brown v. Ahem, 676 F.3d 

899, 903 (9th Cir.2012); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir.1980).

In addition, although there is no exhaustion requirement under section 2241(c)(3), 

principles of comity and federalism require a federal court to abstain from deciding preconviction habeas corpus challenges unless a petitioner demonstrates that (1) he has 

exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances warrant 

federal intervention.” See Carden, 626 F.2d at 83–84. Here, Petitioner has not raised the 

issue of allegedly being singled out for prosecution in the California Court of Appeal or 

Supreme Court.

Moreover, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any special circumstance or 

irreparable injury that would warrant federal intervention and which cannot be addressed 

by the state courts in an orderly fashion. Petitioner is actively contesting the question of 

jurisdiction in the trial courts. If convicted, he will have the right to appeal any alleged 

error by the trial court. In addition, the state court heard and specifically rejected 

Petitioner’s claim that the trial deputy lacked objectivity and should be removed. 

Therefore, any suggestion of prosecutor overreach is contradicted by judicial 

involvement. It appears that Petitioner is simply unhappy with the superior court's 

rulings on his jurisdictional arguments and believes that the federal courts should now 

intervene in his favor. However, Petitioner has failed to present any compelling reason 

for this federal court to interfere with the ongoing state criminal proceeding.

All three elements warranting abstention are present. State judicial proceedings are 

on-going; the state proceedings involve the enforcement of state criminal laws, an 

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

18cv427-CAB-MDD

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

important state interest; and, assuming he is convicted, Petitioner will have an adequate 

opportunity to raise his constitutional claims on appeal in the California courts. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that abstention is proper with respect to the stillpending charges.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability will not issue. Reasonable jurists would not 

find the dismissal of the petition debatable or wrong.

Dated: April 17, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00427-CAB-MDD Document 8 Filed 04/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6