Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01582/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01582-0/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

Petitioner is scheduled to be sentenced on September 8, 2011. See

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082011/m4829223.pdf

MDR

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gary Louis Barocsi, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-1582-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

On August 11, 2011, Petitioner Gary Louis Barocsi, who is confined in the Maricopa

County Lower Buckeye Jail, filed a pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. For multiple

reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

I. Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

Petitioner is a pretrial detainee. His case, Maricopa County Superior Court case

#CR2010-131274-001 DT, is still ongoing.1

 Relief is therefore unavailable pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254, which requires that a person be in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State

court. 

. . . .

. . . .

Case 2:11-cv-01582-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

II. Relief Unavailable under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

Section 2241, 28 U.S.C., provides an avenue for habeas corpus relief for a pretrial

detainee in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States.

“As an exercise of judicial restraint, however, federal courts elect not to entertain habeas

corpus challenges to state court proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state

avenues for raising [a] federal claim.” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980).

Petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies before bringing this habeas corpus action.

III. Younger Abstention

The abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents

a federal court in most circumstances from directly interfering with ongoing criminal

proceedings in state court. Absent special circumstances, such as “proven harassment or

prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid

conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be

shown,” a federal court will not entertain a pretrial habeas corpus petition. Carden, 626 F.2d

at 84 (quoting Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). “[O]nly in the most unusual

circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or

habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case

concluded in the state courts.” Id. at 83-84 (quoting Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th

Cir. 1972)).

Petitioner has failed to show special or extraordinary circumstances indicating that he

will suffer irreparable harm if this Court abstains from hearing his claims until after he has

a chance to present his claims to the state courts. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46; Carden,

626 F.2d at 83-84. This Court, therefore, will abstain from interfering in Petitioner’s ongoing

state-court criminal proceedings.

IV. Dismissal Without Prejudice

The § 2254 Petition and this action will be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner

may file another petition in a new habeas corpus action after all state criminal proceedings

are completed and available state judicial remedies are exhausted. See Swoopes v. Sublett,

Case 2:11-cv-01582-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

196 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[E]xcept in habeas petitions in life-sentence or capital

cases, claims of Arizona state prisoners are exhausted for purposes of federal habeas once

the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled on them.”). 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s § 2254 Petition (Doc. 1) and this action are

dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 25th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-01582-DGC--MEA Document 3 Filed 08/25/11 Page 3 of 3