Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00717/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00717-0/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 1

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/042011/m4698145.pdf.

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Lee Francois, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0717-PHX-GMS (MHB)

ORDER

Petitioner Kevin Lee Francois, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, has filed a pro se “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

by a Person in State Custody” and paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will dismiss the

Petition and this action. 

I. Petition

Petitioner alleges the following in his Petition: On January 5, 2010, Petitioner was

arrested by the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), in Newport Beach, California.

As part of its booking procedure, Petitioner’s DNA was obtained and matched to outstanding

Arizona cases. Petitioner was held by the NBPD for nine months before charges in

California were dismissed and he was apparently extradited to the custody of the Maricopa

County Sheriff’s Office on charges pending in Maricopa County Superior Court, case#

CR2010-006046 and CR2010-006261.1

Case 2:11-cv-00717-GMS--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/17/11 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 - 2 -

Petitioner alleges three grounds for relief in his Petition. In Ground One, Petitioner

alleges that NBPD officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights by manufacturing and

falsifying the police report of his arrest. In Ground Two, Petitioner alleges that a NBPD

officer violated his Sixth Amendment rights by obstructing and coercing a witness to falsely

testify against Petitioner at his California preliminary hearing. In Ground Three, Petitioner

alleges that but for his wrongful arrest by the NBPD, his DNA would not have been obtained

as part of its booking procedure and matched to outstanding Arizona cases. He contends that

evidence should be suppressed. Petitioner names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio

as a Respondent and the Arizona Attorney General as an additional Respondent. 

II. Challenges to Pretrial Detention

Petitioner ostensibly seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Federal habeas relief

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the “exclusive vehicle” for a state prisoner to seek relief from

a state conviction or sentence in federal court. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-

10 (9th Cir. 2004). Such relief for a state conviction is available “only on the ground that [an

inmate] is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). However, Petitioner is currently held as a pretrial detainee. Thus, he

challenges pretrial incarceration. 

Challenges to pretrial incarceration may be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3). Section 2241(c)(3) provides that “the writ of habeas corpus [extends to persons

who are] ... in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States

....” See McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden v. State of

Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980) (“district court had jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, to issue [a] pretrial writ of habeas corpus”). However, the abstention doctrine set

forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most

circumstances from directly interceding in ongoing state criminal proceedings. The Younger

abstention doctrine also applies while a case works its way through the state appellate

process, if a prisoner is convicted. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New

Case 2:11-cv-00717-GMS--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/17/11 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 - 3 -

Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in limited, extraordinary circumstances will the

Younger doctrine not bar federal interference with ongoing (non-final) state criminal

proceedings. Such circumstances include when a prisoner alleges that he is being subjected

to double jeopardy. See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy

trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is seeking to compel the state to bring him to

trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges, and the detainee has exhausted all of his

state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484,

489-90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11,

18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000). 

Petitioner seeks to challenge his allegedly wrongful arrest in California and to

suppress his DNA sample. Even if Petitioner had sought relief pursuant to § 2241, Petitioner

has not alleged any ground that falls within the very limited circumstances in which a federal

court may intercede in ongoing state criminal proceedings under the Younger doctrine. He

does not assert a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, or facts to

support such violation, or that his speedy trial rights have been violated for which he seeks

to compel the state to bring him to trial. Rather, Petitioner appears to seek to have his DNA

sample suppressed. As discussed above, that is not a basis for a federal court to interfere in

state criminal proceedings. Because none of Petitioner’s grounds fall within the very limited

circumstances in which a federal court may intercede in ongoing state criminal proceedings

under the Younger doctrine, the Petition and this action will be dismissed pursuant to the

Younger abstention doctrine. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Petition and this action are dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 1.)

(2) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

(3) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, in the event

Petitioner files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because

reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v.

Case 2:11-cv-00717-GMS--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/17/11 Page 3 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 - 4 -

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

DATED this 16th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00717-GMS--MHB Document 6 Filed 05/17/11 Page 4 of 4