Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07412/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07412-0/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

1

Rosenbalm's most recent letter was mailed after he was moved to Napa State Hospital

and indicated that the criminal charges are still pending against him. Although he did not state

why he was at Napa State Hospital, the continued pendency of the criminal charges against him

while he was at a state mental hospital plus his allegations that the court improperly considered

reports from two doctors, suggest that he was in the mental hospital either for an inquiry into his

competence or pending restoration of his competence to stand trial. See Cal. Penal Code § 1367

et seq. 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINCENT ROSENBALM,

Petitioner,

v.

MENDOCINO SUPERIOR COURT,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-7412 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Vincent Rosenbalm filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

He was housed at the Mendocino County Jail when he filed this action, but is now housed at

Napa State Hospital. His petition is now before the court for review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

At the time he filed his petition in this action, Rosenbalm was a pretrial detainee. He

stated in this petition that he had been charged with violating Penal Code § 422, making a

criminal threat.1

 This is his second petition challenging his pretrial detention; his first petition

was sent less than 2 weeks earlier, see Rosenbalm v. Pearce, C 06-7237 SI. In the petition in this

Case 3:06-cv-07412-SI Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 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

2

Rosenbalm also alleged in his petition that he was improperly held for seven days in

2004 prior to arraignment on a separate criminal charge. It is too late to assert any habeas

challenge to the 2004 detention because Rosenbalm is no longer in custody on that charge. A

habeas petitioner must be in custody for the action he is challenging at the time he files his

petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989). 

2

action, Rosenbalm alleged that the state courts refused to answer his habeas petitions, refused

to appoint him an attorney to replace the public defender he fired a month before he filed his

federal petition, accepted reports from two doctors who had not talked to him, and refused to

allow him to subpoena witnesses. He further alleged he was subjected to an unlawful search and

seizure in September 2006 during which police took some of his property.2

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3) by a person who is in custody but not yet convicted or sentenced. See McNeely v.

Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Application of Floyd, 413 F. Supp. 574, 576 (D.

Nev. 1976). Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a petition brought under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3), principles of federalism and comity require that this court abstain until all state

criminal proceedings are completed and the petitioner exhausts available judicial state remedies,

unless special circumstances warranting federal intervention prior to a state criminal trial can be

found. See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014

(1980); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971) (under principles of comity and

federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by

granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances). The special

circumstances that might warrant federal habeas intervention before trial include proven

harassment, bad faith prosecutions and other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable

injury can be shown. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (violation of speedy trial right not alone an

extraordinary circumstance). Rosenbalm's repeated allegations about the state courts' refusal to

respond to him appear at first blush to present potential special circumstances. However,

examining the chronology of events shows that the alleged slow service does not amount to a

special circumstance. On September 26, 2006, Rosenbalm was arrested, booked and released

with directions to return to court in mid-October. He apparently was arrested again on October

Case 3:06-cv-07412-SI Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 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

3

18 and arraigned on October 23, 2006, and may have been in custody since then. The fact that

only a matter of weeks passed between his arraignment and the November 27, 2006 filing of his

federal petition puts his numerous complaints about slow service by the state courts into

perspective and leads this court to conclude that there has not been a delay of sufficient

magnitude to constitute a special circumstance warranting federal intervention in the criminal

case against Rosenbalm. Rosenbalm was peppering the state courts with filings -- he may have

filed as many as 12 state habeas petitions -- much as he has done in this court with his nine

separate federal actions and numerous letters filed since November 2006. Because Rosenbalm

has not shown special circumstances that warrant federal intervention before the trial is held and

any appeal is completed, this court will abstain and DISMISS the petition without prejudice. See

id. at 84. The alleged problems that Rosenbalm 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 Rosenbalm filing a new habeas

petition, but he should not file a new federal petition for writ of habeas corpus unless he gets

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. 

The clerk shall terminate all pending motions and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 21, 2007 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07412-SI Document 8 Filed 03/21/07 Page 3 of 3