Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01252/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01252-0/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

18cv1252-CAB (WVG)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERICA D. HAYWOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1252-CAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AS 

MOOT AND DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of 

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Three of the four claims in the Petition challenge the conditions 

of confinement at the Los Colinas Detention Facility where Petitioner is confined awaiting 

trial in the San Diego County Superior Court (ECF No. 1 at 6-8), and the remaining claim 

challenges her pending criminal charges (id. at 9). For the following reasons, the claims 

challenging the conditions of confinement are not properly brought in a habeas action under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254, but must be brought if at all in a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, and the Court must abstain from addressing the claim challenging 

Petitioner’s ongoing criminal proceedings. The Petition is therefore subject to dismissal 

without leave to amend, but without prejudice to present the conditions of confinement 

claims in a separate civil rights complaint, and without prejudice to present the claim 

Case 3:18-cv-01252-CAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv1252-CAB (WVG)

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

challenging the criminal charges in a separate federal habeas petition after the state criminal 

proceedings are final if necessary. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is moot.

Petitioner’s claims challenging the conditions of confinement are not cognizable on 

federal habeas corpus because they do not challenge the constitutional validity or duration 

of her confinement. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973), the Court held that 

habeas is the exclusive remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or duration of her

confinement and where the relief she seeks is a determination she is entitled to release from 

that confinement. Id. at 488-500. Challenges to conditions of confinement are brought 

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 499; see also Mayle v. Felix, 545 

U.S. 644, 671 n.4 (2005) (“the single, defining feature setting habeas cases apart from other 

tort claims against the State is that they ‘necessarily demonstrate[e] the invalidity of the 

conviction.’”), quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85 (1994). Petitioner is 

advised that if she wishes to challenge the conditions of her confinement she must file a 

civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which will be filed as a separate civil 

action and given a separate civil case number. 

The Court is barred from consideration of Petitioner’s only other claim, alleging she 

is not guilty of the criminal charges upon which she is awaiting trial, by the abstention 

doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal 

courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary 

circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar 

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against 

federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”) These concerns are 

particularly important in the habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction may be 

reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 

F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 

interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 

Case 3:18-cv-01252-CAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv1252-CAB (WVG)

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

issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 

2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the instant 

Petition her criminal case is ongoing in state court, there is no indication she is unable to 

petition the state courts for the relief she seeks, and there is no question that state criminal 

proceedings involve important state interests. 

Petitioner has failed to show she has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to 

raise the federal issues in state court, or that the state courts do not provide her an adequate 

opportunity to raise her claim. Rather, her claim that she is not guilty of the offense on 

which she is awaiting trial (see ECF No. 1 at 9), is the type of claim that the state courts 

provide an opportunity to raise at trial and on appeal. Abstention is therefore required. See

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate 

proceedings as well as ongoing proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 

F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[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 that the case concluded in the state 

courts.”); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention 

applies, a court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice and without leave to amend because 

Petitioner must challenge the conditions of her confinement in this Court, if at all, in a 

separate civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and because the Court 

must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings. The request to 

proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01252-CAB-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/14/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3