Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01587/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01587-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BARRY FRANK WILSON,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

TUOLUMNE COUNTY,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:13-cv-01587-LJO-SAB-HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN 

DAYS

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner filed 

the instant petition on September 26, 2013. At the time he filed his petition, he was apparently 

awaiting court trial concerning a traffic infraction and facing a fine of $229.00. (See Petition at 

1.) He raises several claims regarding the trial court process. For instance, he claims his 

motions were summarily and capriciously dismissed. He claims he is being wrongfully required 

to pay the fine before he proceeds to trial. Additionally, he claims the trial court is without 

jurisdiction because a “gold-fringed” flag is displayed in the courtroom, and such flags are 

reserved courts of the military.1 

///

 

1

 As to this additional point, the plaintiff’s argument is entirely without any legal foundation or historical accuracy. 

The jurisdiction of a particular court is not based upon the “fringe” located on a flag, but instead the jurisdiction 

conferred on it by the appropriate legislative body. 

Case 1:13-cv-01587-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 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

I.

DISCUSSION

A. Procedural Grounds for Summary Dismissal

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 

is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and 

direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ 

of habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th 

Cir.2001). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 

appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 

440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971).

B. Younger Abstention

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 empowers the Court to “entertain an application for a writ of 

habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court ... on the 

ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 

States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Because there is no State court judgment here, the Court 

deems the Petition to have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which empowers a 

district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus before a judgment is entered in a criminal 

proceeding. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n. 1 (9th Cir.2003).

In the instant petition, Petitioner complains he is being denied his constitutional due 

process rights in proceedings prior to his court trial. In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

the Supreme Court established that a federal court generally must abstain from hearing a case 

that would enjoin or otherwise interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings. Absent limited 

exceptions, Younger abstention is required if four elements are met: (1) state proceedings are 

ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; (3) the state proceedings 

provide the federal litigant an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims; and (4) the federal 

proceedings would interfere with the state proceedings in a way that Younger disapproves. San 

Case 1:13-cv-01587-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 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

Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 

1087, 1092 (9th Cir.2008); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 1148–49 (9th 

Cir.2007). Exceptions to Younger abstention exist where there is a “showing of bad faith, 

harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 

inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 

(1982); see Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.2003). 

In this case, the state proceedings are ongoing. Further, Petitioner cannot dispute that the 

state proceedings pending against him implicate important state interests. Additionally, there is 

no reason to believe that Petitioner is being denied an adequate and full opportunity to raise his 

claims in the state courts. Further, Petitioner's habeas petition threatens to interfere with the state 

proceedings in a manner that Younger disapproves by inserting federal courts into the ordinary 

course of state proceedings. Finally, no exception to Younger abstention applies. There is no 

suggestion of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 

abstention inappropriate. The Court therefore concludes that Younger abstention requires the 

dismissal of the petition herein. 

C. Jurisdiction

The basic scope of habeas corpus is prescribed by statute. Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) 

provides that “[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless,” inter alia, “[h]e 

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or law or treaties of the United States.” The 

Supreme Court has held that “the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody 

upon the legality of that custody . . .” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

In this case, Petitioner is not “in custody” for purposes of federal habeas corpus. 

Petitioner complains that he is being fined as a result of a traffic infraction. The imposition of a 

fine does not satisfy the “custody” requirement. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976 (9th Cir.2010); 

Dremann v. Francis, 828 F.2d 6, 7 (9th Cir. 1987) (per curiam). Therefore, the Court is without 

jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01587-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 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

II.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus be SUMMARILY DISMISSED with prejudice. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill, 

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) 

and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District 

of California. 

Within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written 

objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01587-LJO-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/07/14 Page 4 of 4