Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06559/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06559-0/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MITCHELL,

Petitioner,

 v.

CHARLES C. PLUMMER,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-06559 SBA (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner Paul Mitchell, a pretrial detainee at Santa Rita County Jail, has filed a pro se

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because there is no state

judgment, the Court deems the petition to have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the

general habeas statute. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (listing pretrial

detention as example of when § 2241 applies).

In an Order dated April 24, 2007, the Court informed him that pre-conviction habeas

challenges must first be exhausted in state court and also that they usually are barred by the

abstention doctrine. The petition was dismissed with leave to amend to say whether he has

exhausted available state judicial remedies, and to specifically allege special circumstances which

would warrant federal intervention at this stage of the case. 

On May 23, 2007, Petitioner filed an amended petition.

DISCUSSION

Principles of comity and federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain

Petitioner's pre-conviction habeas challenge unless he shows that: (1) he has exhausted available

state judicial remedies, and (2) "special circumstances" warrant federal intervention. See Carden v.

Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions

Case 4:06-cv-06559-SBA Document 15 Filed 10/19/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 To whatever extent Petitioner also seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he

must do so in a separate civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See, e.g., Badea v. Cox, 931

F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (civil rights action is proper method of challenging conditions of

confinement).

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Mitchell6559.dismiss.wpd2

undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in

other special circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against

pending state prosecutions appropriate. See id. at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85

(1971)). In his amended petition, Petitioner makes no such showing of "special circumstances"

warranting federal intervention before the trial is held and any appeal is completed. See id.

Accordingly, this Court will abstain, and his petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. The alleged

problems that Petitioner claims he is enduring are matters that can and should be addressed in the

first instance by the trial court, and then by the state appellate courts, before he seeks a federal writ

of habeas corpus.

The dismissal of this action is without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new habeas petition,

but he should not file a new federal petition for writ of habeas corpus unless he is convicted or

committed and then not until his direct appeal and state habeas proceedings have concluded and he

has given the state's highest court a fair opportunity to rule on each of his claims. 

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after

state criminal proceedings, including appeal, are completed.1

 

The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order, terminate all

pending motions as moot, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 10/18/07 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06559-SBA Document 15 Filed 10/19/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

P:\PRO-SE\SBA\HC.06\Mitchell6559.dismiss.wpd3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL MITCHELL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CHARLES C. PLUMMER et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV06-06559 SBA 

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 October 19, 2007, 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.

Paul Mitchell BBC609

Santa Rita County Jail

5325 Broder Blvd.

Dublin, CA 94568-3309

Dated: October 19, 2007

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:06-cv-06559-SBA Document 15 Filed 10/19/07 Page 3 of 3