Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01585-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YASIR MEHMOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

RYAN GARCIA, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:15-cv-01585 MJS (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO 

THE PRESENT MATTER

Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with the instant petition 

for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 16, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner is not in custody as the result of a state or federal court criminal judgment.

Petitioner is a federal pretrial detainee and currently subject to prosecution on criminal 

charges in the Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California in United States 

v. Mehmood, Case No. 2:12—cr—00154-JAM. Trial in the underlying criminal matter is 

currently set for July 11, 2016. Id. at ECF No. 403. On March 1, 2013, a pretrial services 

violation petition was filed and a warrant was issued for Petitioner's arrest. (See Pet.)

Petitioner alleges that the arrest warrant was illegally issued because the pretrial 

Case 1:15-cv-01585-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

services violation petition was not accompanied by an affidavit, as required by the Fourth 

Amendment, and therefore did not establish probable cause. (Id.)

I. SCREENING THE PETITION

Because the petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the effective date of the 

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), AEDPA applies to the 

petition. Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 327 (1997); Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 

1499 (9th Cir. 1997).

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

(Habeas Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas Rule 1(b). Habeas Rule 4 requires the Court to make a 

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must summarily 

dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court...." Habeas Rule 4; O'Bremski v. 

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 

(9th Cir. 1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all grounds of relief 

available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts supporting each ground; and 3) state the 

relief requested. Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must state facts that 

point to a real possibility of constitutional error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 

Adoption; O'Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.

63, 75 n.7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition that are vague, conclusory, or palpably 

incredible are subject to summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d at 491.

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas corpus either on its 

own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent's motion to dismiss, or 

after an answer to the petition has been filed. Advisory Committee Notes to Habeas Rule 

8, 1976 Adoption; see Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2001).

III. DISCUSSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas 

petition brought by a federal pretrial detainee. Although Section 2241 establishes 

Case 1:15-cv-01585-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

jurisdiction in the federal courts to consider pretrial habeas petitions, the courts should 

abstain from the exercise of that jurisdiction if the issues raised in the petition may be 

resolved either by trial on the merits or other procedures available to the petitioner in the 

pending criminal case. See, Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 417-20, 83 S. Ct. 822, 9 L. Ed. 

2d 837 (1963); Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-92, 38 S. Ct. 166, 62 L. Ed. 358 

(1918); Riggins v. United States, 199 U.S. 547, 550-51, 26 S. Ct. 147, 50 L. Ed. 303 

(1905). 

A pretrial detention ruling can be challenged in the context of the criminal case, 

and therefore is not appropriately challenged in a separate § 2241 proceeding. See

Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1018-1019 (5th Cir. 1988) (per curiam) 

(criticizing habeas petitioner's decision to challenge constitutionality of pretrial detention 

order in habeas rather than through an appeal brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3145, but 

declining to find § 3145 offered exclusive remedy); United States v. Pipito, 861 F.2d 

1006, 1009 (7th Cir. 1987) (holding that it was not error for the district court to refuse to 

consider habeas petition because petitioner should have followed procedures in 18 

U.S.C. § 3145); Whitmer v. Levi, 276 F. App'x 217, 219 (3rd Cir. 2008) (per curiam) 

(holding that petitioner challenging his pretrial detention in habeas did not seek an 

appropriate remedy because adequate remedies were available in his criminal case).

Petitioner's criminal case is ongoing, and any challenges to his pretrial detention 

should be pursued in the criminal case. Accordingly, his petition should be summarily 

dismissed. 

The petition should also be dismissed because Petitioner fails to state a claim for 

relief. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "no Warrants 

shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation." An unsworn 

declaration made under penalty of perjury has the same force and effect as a "sworn 

declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit." 28 U.S.C. § 1746. An 

unsworn declaration that complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 satisfies the requirements of 

the Fourth Amendment because "signing a statement under penalty of perjury satisfies 

Case 1:15-cv-01585-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 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

the standard for an oath or affirmation." United States v. Bueno-Vargas, 383 F.3d 1104, 

1110 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding that an unsworn probable cause statement that was signed 

under penalty of perjury and faxed to the magistrate judge satisfied Fourth Amendment's 

oath and affirmation requirement). Petitioner attaches a copy of the pretrial services 

violation petition which was signed under penalty of perjury. ECF No. 1 at 30-32. The 

oath or affirmation requirement of the Fourth Amendment was therefore satisfied and 

petitioner is not entitled to relief.

For these reasons set forth above, the petition should be summarily dismissed.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ 

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED. Further, the Clerk of Court is ORDERED to assign a 

district court judge to the instant matter. 

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned 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 thirty (30) 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 Recommendations. 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. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 

2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01585-DAD-MJS Document 4 Filed 01/25/16 Page 4 of 4