Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-02122-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

-1- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

WILLIAM DAWES,

Plaintiff,

vs. 

HOWARD AUSBURY, et al.

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET)

ORDER: 

DENYING MOTION FOR SPEEDY 

TRIAL, APPOINTMENT OF 

COUNSEL, AND OBJECTION TO 

STAY; AND

[Doc. No. 89] 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS 

Plaintiff William Dawes, a California inmate proceeding pro se, has brought this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Ausbury, Bravo, 

Gene, Ugalde, Silva, Shellano, Ayala, Solis, and Zuniga. See Doc. No. 13. The parties 

previously moved to stay these proceedings for a period of six months pending the 

outcome of related criminal proceedings in state court. See Doc. No. 68; see also S.D. 

Sup. Ct. No. SCS287189. The Court agreed and extended the stay through February 16, 

2024. See Doc. No. 69. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 94 Filed 03/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 5
-2- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

Defendants filed a Status Report on February 6, 2024 advising the Court that a 

further stay was warranted due to continued litigation in Plaintiff’s pending criminal 

proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s competency. See Doc. No. 82. The 

Court concluded in an Order filed on February 13, 2024 that a further stay of this action 

was appropriate and stayed this action through August 16, 2024. See Doc. No. 83. 

Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Lift Stay and a Motion to Lift Stay and Proceed, which the 

Court construed as Motions for Reconsideration of the Order Extending Stay. See Doc. 

Nos. 84, 86. On February 21, 2024, the Court denied the Motions for Reconsideration. 

Doc. No. 88. Plaintiff has now filed a document entitled “Motion for Speedy Trial, 

Appointment of Counsel, Objection to Stay Order.” See Doc. No. 89

DISCUSSION

Although it is difficult to discern exactly what relief Plaintiff seeks, it appears that 

Plaintiff claims the State of California is violating his speedy trial rights in San Diego 

Superior Court case no. SCS287189. Doc. No. 89 at 4. Specifically, he contends that 

repeated findings that he is incompetent to stand trial have improperly delayed his trial. 

Id. at 2–4. 

In this case, Plaintiff is making a constitutional challenge to the conditions of his 

prison life, but not to the fact or length of his custody, and thus he has brought the current 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Doc. No. 1. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 

475, 488–500 (1973); Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 935 (9th Cir. 2016). A claim 

regarding Plaintiff’s speedy trial rights, however, cannot be brought pursuant to § 1983 

and must instead be brought via either a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for prisoners in state 

custody pursuant to a state court conviction, or 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a pre-trial 

detainee. Preiser, 411 U.S. at 500; Nettles, 830 F.3d at 935; White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 

1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Section 2254 is properly understood as ‘in effect 

implement[ing] the general grant of habeas corpus authority found in § 2241, as long as 

the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and not in state custody 

for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody awaiting extradition, or 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 94 Filed 03/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 5
-3- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.”), overruled on other 

grounds by Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 554 (9th Cir. 2010)). Thus, he cannot 

proceed with a speedy trial claim in this matter.

Further, this Court would be barred from consideration of this claim in a § 2254 or 

§ 2241 petition 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) (Younger

“espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 

judicial proceedings.”) Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is 

required 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 issue. 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 criminal case is still 

ongoing in the state courts. See Doc. No. 82-1. Further, there is no question that the state 

criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Finally, Petitioner has failed to 

show that he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issues on 

direct appeal. Indeed, Plaintiff is currently challenging the most recent competency 

finding in the California Court of Appeal. Id. at 2; see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 

592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings as well as ongoing 

proceedings in state trial court); see also 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.”)

Plaintiff also asks for to counsel to be appointed to represent him. Doc. No. 89 at 

4–5. Plaintiff is represented by the San Diego County Public Defender’s Office in his 

criminal case in state court and is represented by attorney Laura Arnold on appeal of the 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 94 Filed 03/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 5
-4- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

state court’s 2022 finding of incompetency. See Doc. No. 82-1; see also 

https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=41&do

c_id=2499978&doc_no=D081586&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw8WyBFSCM9SE9IID

w6UkxbKyJOUzJSUCAgCg%3D%3D (last visited on March 13, 2024). As to 

appointment of counsel in the present case, there is no constitutional right to counsel in a 

civil case. Appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound 

discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Agyeman 

v. Corr. Corp. of America, 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004); Terrell v. Brewer, 935 

F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991) (noting that only “exceptional circumstances” support 

such a discretionary appointment). Exceptional circumstances exist where there is 

cumulative showing of both a likelihood of success on the merits and an inability of the 

pro se litigant to articulate his claims in light of their legal complexity. Palmer v. Valdez, 

560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009). Plaintiff sufficiently articulated the facts and 

circumstances relevant to his claims in his Amended Complaint to pass the screening 

stage, see Doc. No. 23, but he has yet to show he is likely to succeed on the merits of the 

claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel at 

this time without prejudice to its renewal at a later stage of these proceedings.

Finally, Dawes objects to the continuation of the stay in this case. Doc. No. 89. 

As the Court noted in both its Order Extending the Stay of Proceedings and its Order 

Construing Motions to Lift Stay as Motions for Reconsideration and Denying Motions 

for Reconsideration, upon consideration of the supporting declaration of defense counsel 

and the relevant factors set forth in Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 

324–25 (9th Cir. 1995), a further stay is warranted due to continued litigation in 

Plaintiff’s pending criminal proceedings, including issues regarding Plaintiff’s 

competency. See Doc. Nos. 83, 88. Neither Plaintiff, Defendant, nor any interested third 

parties will suffer prejudice because of an extension of the stay of proceedings in this 

Court. As the Court previously noted, proceedings related to Plaintiff’s criminal charges 

may impact certain claims and issues in this action. 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 94 Filed 03/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 5
-5- 19-cv-2122-MMA (VET) 

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

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Speedy Trial, 

Appointment of Counsel, and Objection to the Stay Order (Doc. No. 89). Further, the 

Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to update Plaintiff’s address and mail this Order to:

William Dawes

CDCR No. G43030

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility

480 Alta Rd.

San Diego, CA 92179

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 13, 2024

 

Case 3:19-cv-02122-MMA-VET Document 94 Filed 03/13/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 5 of 5