Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05580/USCOURTS-cand-1_14-cv-05580-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 A writ of mandate is an order from an appellate court directing a lower court to take

a specified action. Ellis v. District Court, 360 F.3d 1022, 1022-23 (9th Cir. 2004).

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

 vs.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,

Respondent. /

No. C 14-5580 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandate and stay of

appellate proceeding. (Doc. 1.) The court construed the petition as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 22541

 and dismissed the petition with leave to

amend. (Doc. 6.) Petitioner has now filed an amended petition. (Doc. 7.)

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus "in behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. §

2254(a); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). Habeas corpus petitions must meet

heightened pleading requirements. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994). An

application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state custody

Case 1:14-cv-05580-NJV Document 8 Filed 03/18/15 Page 1 of 5
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

pursuant to a judgment of a state court must “specify all the grounds for relief available to

the petitioner ... [and] state the facts supporting each ground.” Rule 2(c) of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. “‘[N]otice’ pleading is not sufficient, for the

petition is expected to state facts that point to a ‘real possibility of constitutional error.’” 

Rule 4 Advisory Committee Notes (quoting Aubut v. Maine, 431 F.2d 688, 689 (1st Cir.

1970)). 

B. Legal Claims

From the original petition it appeared that petitioner was convicted in state court and

his direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal was currently being prepared by

appointed counsel. Petitioner argued that there were violations of due process during his

trial and that trial counsel was ineffective. Petitioner asserted that appellate counsel was

ineffective and was not presenting certain claims on appeal. Petitioner filed several

petitions for writ of mandate in state court, which were all denied. This court dismissed the

original petition with leave to amend for petitioner to address the issue of exhaustion and

Younger abstention. (Doc. 6.)

An application for a federal writ of habeas corpus filed by a prisoner who is in state

custody pursuant to a judgment of a state court may not be granted unless the prisoner has

first exhausted state judicial remedies, either by way of a direct appeal or in collateral

proceedings, by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule

on the merits of each and every issue he or she seeks to raise in federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 2254(b),(c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). Petitioner has the

burden of pleading exhaustion in his habeas petition. See Cartwright v. Cupp, 650 F.2d

1103, 1104 (9th Cir. 1981).

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. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal

courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's

bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently

Case 1:14-cv-05580-NJV Document 8 Filed 03/18/15 Page 2 of 5
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

violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost,

anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense are not special circumstances or irreparable

harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every

"clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is applied). The rationale of

Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review

of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. 

Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 969 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2004).

Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary circumstance" that (1) the

party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will

suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d

1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is

incompetent by reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973). A

party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those

serving as adjudicators. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708,

713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

Petitioner’s amended petition fails to cure the deficiencies in his original petition. He

seeks to have this court appoint new appellate counsel in state court or allow petitioner to

proceed pro se in state court. The court finds, however, that petitioner has failed to

demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant intervention in an ongoing state

proceeding. That he disagrees with his appellate counsel is not sufficient overcome the

principles of comity explained in Younger and he must pursue that relief in state court. To

the extent petitioner wishes to challenge his underlying conviction he must wait until his

claims are fully exhausted. The court therefore concludes that it plainly appears from the

face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. The court must

therefore dismiss the petition. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

United States District Courts.

//

//

Case 1:14-cv-05580-NJV Document 8 Filed 03/18/15 Page 3 of 5
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

4

CONCLUSION 

The petition is DISMISSED for the reasons set forth above.

Because reasonable jurists would not find the result here debatable, a certificate of

appealability (“COA”) is DENIED. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000)

(standard for COA). The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:14-cv-05580-NJV Document 8 Filed 03/18/15 Page 4 of 5
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

5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

DANIEL LLOYD HOWARD,

Petitioner,

v.

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,

Respondent. /

No. 1:14-CV-5580 NJV

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that on March 18, 2015, I served a true and correct copy of

the attached by placing said copy in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person listed below,

by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail.

Daniel Lloyd Howard 

AP 9039 

P.O. Box 5007 

Housing D2-136 

Calipatria, CA 92233

Dated: March 18, 2015 Linn Van Meter

Administrative Law Clerk to the

Honorable Nandor J. Vadas

Case 1:14-cv-05580-NJV Document 8 Filed 03/18/15 Page 5 of 5