Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01222/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-01222-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Brown01222_dism.wpd 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NERRAH BROWN, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

SHERIFF GREGORY J. AHERN,

Respondent. _________________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

C 10-01222 JF (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL; DENYING

MOTION TO STAY STATE COURT

PROCEEDINGS

(Docket No. 9)

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the North County Jail in Alameda, California,

seeks petition in pro se for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging the preliminary hearing proceedings. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. The

Court will dismiss the instant petition without prejudice because Petitioner’s underlying

state court proceedings are still pending. 

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee at North County Jail of

Alameda County, awaiting trial for several counts of second degree robbery. (Pet. at 2.) 

A preliminary hearing was held in July 2009, where Petitioner appeared in propria

Case 5:10-cv-01222-JF Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 4
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

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Brown01222_dism.wpd 2

persona. Petitioner filed state habeas petitions, the last of which was summarily denied

by the California Supreme Court on March 10, 2010. Petitioner filed the instant petition

on March 24, 2010.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus “in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in

custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). 

A district court shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to

show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. State Proceedings

If petitioner is not currently confined pursuant to a final decision, or “judgment,”

of the superior court, his petition must be construed as arising under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3), which provides habeas jurisdiction over any person held in custody in

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States, rather than § 2254,

which applies to persons held pursuant to a state court judgment. Although § 2241(c)(3)

does not require exhaustion of state judicial remedies, principles of federalism and comity

require that this court abstain and not entertain a pre-sentence habeas challenge unless the

petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2)

“special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37, 43-54 (1971); Carden, 626 F.2d at 83-84, 83 n.4; Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65

(9th Cir. 1972) (“Our reading of Younger v. Harris convinces us that only 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 state courts. Apparent finality of one issue is not

Case 5:10-cv-01222-JF Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 4
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 Unlike the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Speedy Trial Clause, when raised as an

affirmative defense, does not embody a right which is necessarily forfeited by delaying

review until after trial. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84.

Order of Dismissal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.JF\HC.10\Brown01222_dism.wpd 3

enough.”) (citation omitted). 

Only in cases of 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, is preconviction federal

intervention against pending state prosecutions appropriate.1

 Carden, 626 F.2d at 84

(citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). The Court is not convinced that

Petitioner’s warrants such federal intervention. 

Accordingly, because the Court must abstain from ruling on the petition until the

petitioner’s state proceedings are completed, the instant petition will be DISMISSED

without prejudice. See Carden, 626 F.2d at 84. Petitioner’s motion for a stay of state

court proceedings pending ruling on the instant petition for habeas corpus is DENIED. 

(Docket No. 9.)

This order terminates Docket No. 9.

DATED: _________________________ 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

8/12/10

Case 5:10-cv-01222-JF Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 3 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NERRAH BROWN,

Petitioner,

 v.

GREGORY J AHERN,

Respondent. /

Case Number: CV10-01222 JF 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on , I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the

attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)

hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into

an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

Nerrah Brown ART278

North County Jail-Alameda Cty

550 Sixth St

Oakland, CA 94607

Dated: 

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

8/17/10

8/17/10

Case 5:10-cv-01222-JF Document 10 Filed 08/17/10 Page 4 of 4