Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02214/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-02214-0/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 (Federal)

---

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 “Doc.#” refers to the docket number of filings in this action. 

 2

 See Mansanares v. Arpaio, No. CV 09-0284-PHX-MHM (LOA), doc.# 5 at 1-2, which

was dismissed on March 17, 2009. In the current Petition, Petitioner states that he is and has

WO SC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Miguel (Mike) Mansanares, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-2214-PHX-MHM (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Miguel Mansanares, who is confined in the Fourth Avenue Jail in Phoenix,

Arizona, filed a pro se a “Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by

a Person in State Custody” (“Petition”) with a document captioned “Petition for Emergency

Injunction: To Stay All Proceedings in State Cases” (hereafter “Motion”). (Doc.# 1, 3.)1

Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee to file a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

(Doc.# 1.) Petitioner thereafter filed various motions. (Doc.# 6-12.) The Court will deny

the motions and summarily dismiss the Petition and this action. 

I. Petition

Petitioner is and has been held by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in connection

with three criminal cases filed in Maricopa County Superior Court since March 2008.2

 In

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 1 of 7
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

been illegally held in custody since March 27, 2008. (Doc.# 1 at 1.) The three previouslyfiled cases cited in that Order are CR2008-119398, CR2008-007665, and CR2008-007673.

Petitioner was convicted by a jury of resisting arrest and aggravated assault in CR2008-

119398. Petitioner was ordered to co-operate in Rule 11 competency evaluations in the two

other cases. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3920597.

pdf.

 3

 According to records available on-line, at a July 8, 2009 hearing held in case # CR2008-

007665 and CR2008-007673, Petitioner was ordered removed by Superior Court Judge

Timothy Ryan for inappropriate conduct. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/

Criminal/072009/m3791998.pdf. Judge Ryan also terminated Petitioner’s right to represent

himself and appointed counsel. Id. On July 13, 2009, Judge Ryan granted a motion for a full

Rule 11 competency evaluation. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/

072009/m3797122.pdf. 

 4

 See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/102009/m3942039.pdf. 

 5

 On December 8, 2009, the Superior Court appointed new counsel to represent Plaintiff

and set a further hearing regarding the Rule 11 evaluation on January 19, 2010, in Plaintiff’s

three pending criminal cases, CR2008-007665, CR2008-007673, and CR2009-007748. See

http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/122009/m4006555.pdf.

- 2 -

the instant Petition, Petitioner states that on October 15, 2009, he was indicted on new

charges in case # CR2009-007748, which arose from events in connection with a hearing

on July 8, 2009 in one of his other criminal cases.3

 (Doc.# 1 at 1, attach.) Petitioner

contends that on July 8, two unidentified Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputies assaulted him

resulting in internal injuries and broken ribs. (Id.) Records on-line reflect that in CR2009-

007748, Petitioner has been charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of

misdemeanor criminal damage.4

 The Superior Court has ordered a full Rule 11 evaluation

of Petitioner’s competency in all three of his pending criminal cases.5

In the current Petition, Petitioner names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph Arpaio.

Petitioner maintains that he is innocent of the criminal charges in CR2009-002248. (Id.) He

asks this Court to stay his state criminal proceedings for reasons included in his Motion. (Id.

at 2.) In the Motion, Petitioner asks this Court to stay five state cases: Petitioner’s four state

criminal cases and a civil case filed against Petitioner’s mother, Victoria Mansanares.

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 2 of 7
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

 6 The Motion and Petition were filed on October 22, 2009. 

 7

 On October 22, 2009, Victoria Mansanares failed to appear for an evidentiary hearing

and judgment was entered against her. See http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/

Civil/102009/m3947945.pdf.

- 3 -

Petitioner contends that two “unlawful proceedings” were set on October 22, 2009, referring

in part to an arraignment in CR2009-0077486

 and a hearing in CV2005-013356.7

II. Motion for Emergency Relief 

In his Motion for Emergency Relief, Petitioner seeks a stay of four criminal cases

pending against him and a civil case pending against his mother. (Doc.# 3.) The Motion will

be denied. As to the civil case, CV2005-013356, Petitioner may not seek relief on behalf of

his mother because a litigant “‘generally must assert his own legal rights and interests, and

cannot assert the legal rights or interests of third parties.’” Mothershed v. Justices of the

Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 610 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490,

499 (1975)). Because Petitioner may not seek relief on behalf of a third party, in this case

his mother, his request for a stay in Superior Court case# CV2005-013356 will be denied.

Petitioner’s motion to stay his state criminal cases will also be denied based on the Younger

abstention doctrine, discussed below. Accordingly, the Motion for Emergency Relief will

be denied. 

III. Pretrial Habeas Relief

Petitioner in part seeks a stay of his state court criminal proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. Challenges to pretrial incarceration may be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(c)(3), which provides that “the writ of habeas corpus [extends to persons who are]

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

See McNeeley v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Carden v. State of Montana,

626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980) (“district court had jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to

issue [a] pretrial writ of habeas corpus”). However, the abstention doctrine set forth in

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 3 of 7
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

 8 While Petitioner asserts in his motion that the double jeopardy clause “may have

attached” in three of the previously filed state criminal cases, he does not assert– or allege

facts to support– that the newly filed charges implicate double jeopardy.

 9

 While a state inmate may seek injunctive or compensatory relief based on violation of

his civil rights, he must do so in an action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not in a habeas

petition. See Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 643 (2004); Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S.

749, 750 (2004); Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Preiser v.

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). 

- 4 -

directly interceding in ongoing state criminal proceedings. The Younger abstention doctrine

also applies while a case works its way through the state appellate process. New Orleans

Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). Only in

limited, extraordinary circumstances will the Younger doctrine not bar federal interference

with ongoing (non-final) state criminal proceedings. Such circumstances include when a

prisoner alleges that he is being subjected to double jeopardy.8

 See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967

F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Speedy trial claims may also be reviewed if a detainee is

seeking to compel the state to bring him to trial, rather than seeking dismissal of the charges,

and the detainee has exhausted all of his state court remedies. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit

Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489-90 (1973); see In re Justices of Superior Court Dep’t

of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 18 & n.5 (1st Cir. 2000). 

In this case, Petitioner seeks a stay of a pending state criminal proceeding and asserts

violation of various federal civil rights statutes.9

 These grounds do not fall within the very

limited circumstances in which a federal court may intercede in ongoing state criminal

proceedings under the Younger doctrine. Therefore, to the extent that Petitioner seeks

pretrial habeas relief concerning pending state criminal proceedings, the Petition will be

dismissed without leave to amend based on the Younger doctrine. 

IV. Relief Pursuant to § 2241 is Unavailable for a State Conviction

To the extent that Petitioner may be seeking habeas relief as to a state court

conviction, he must bring a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A prisoner attacking a state

conviction must seek federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, rather than 28

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 4 of 7
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 -

U.S.C. § 2241. Federal habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the “exclusive vehicle”

for a state prisoner to seek relief from a state conviction or sentence in federal court. See

White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1009-10 (9th Cir. 2004). Further, federal habeas relief for

a state conviction is available “only on the ground that [an inmate] is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). In

addition, a petitioner who seeks habeas relief from judgments of more than one state court

must file a separate petition covering the judgment or judgments of each court. Rule 2(e),

foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

If Petitioner seeks relief as to a state court conviction, he must file a new action

pursuant to § 2254. Further, under this Court’s local rule, a habeas petitioner must use the

court-approved form when he files a pro se petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, see LRCiv

3.5(a). Petitioner is further informed of the following: A prisoner attacking a state

conviction must exhaust state remedies before a federal court will entertain a petition for writ

of habeas corpus. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982); Szeto v. Rushen, 709 F.2d 1340 (9th

Cir. 1983). To exhaust state remedies, a petitioner must fairly present his claims to the

highest state court within a state’s standard review process in order to provide the state with

an opportunity to rule on the merits of his federal claims. See Swoopes v. Sublett, 196 F.3d

1008, 1010 (9th Cir. 1999); see McQuown v. McCartney, 795 F.2d 807, 809 (9th Cir. 1986);

Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985). An Arizona petitioner sentenced

to less than the death penalty may exhaust his federal claims by presenting them in a

procedurally proper way to the Arizona Court of Appeals, either on direct appeal or in

post-conviction proceedings, without seeking discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme

Court. Crowell v. Knowles, 483 F.Supp.2d 925, 928-30, 933 (D. Ariz. 2007) (following

1989 statutory amendment, Arizona Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over criminal

convictions involving less than a death sentence); cf. Swoopes, 196 F.3d at 1010 (citing

pre-1989 statutory amendment); Castillo v. McFadden, 399 F.3d 993, 998 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005)

(same). Thus, the Petition will be dismissed to the extent that Petitioner seeks relief as to a

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 5 of 7
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

 10 If a petitioner chooses to seek discretionary review in the Arizona Supreme Court,

however, he must await the conclusion of that review before he may seek federal habeas

relief. See Swoopes, 196 F.3d at 1010; Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir.

1983) (habeas petition prematurely filed where proceedings concerning same claims pending

in state court); Fordjour v. Stewart, 44 Fed. Appx. 789, 789-90 (9th Cir. 2002) (habeas action

may be dismissed as unexhausted and premature when discretionary petition is pending

before the Arizona Supreme Court because relief could be granted that would moot federal

claims). 

- 6 -

state court conviction in this case.10

V. Miscellaneous Motions

After filing his Petition and Motion for Emergency Hearing, Petitioner filed several

other motions. (Doc.# 6-11.) These were captioned as follows: “Motion for Federal

Protection Life Endangerment and Physical Injury by MCSO State Courts Fail to Provide

Equal Protection to 1964 Civil Rights Act” (doc.# 6); “Motion to Show Cause State Courts

Fail to Provide Equal Protection to 1964 Civil Rights Act/Denial of Public Hearing” (doc.#

7); “Motion to Offer Info Evidence Bounds vs. Smith Violations 1st Amendment Access to

the Courts” (doc.# 8); “Motion to Show Exhaustion of Administrative Remedys [sic]

[illegible] for Review” (doc.# 9); “Motion to Accept Jurisdictional Statement and Trailing

Motions” (doc.# 10); and “Motion to Clarify Garuanteed [sic] Rights to Due Process of Law

Denial of Trial Transcripts and Equal Protection” (doc.# 11.) These motions concern a

variety of topics including the handling of jail grievances, refusal of the Arizona Court of

Appeals to accept jurisdiction over a special action filed by Petitioner against Superior Court

judges who presided over hearings in Petitioner’s state criminal cases, alleged violations of

Petitioner’s constitutional rights, violations of judicial canons, and the legality of Petitioner’s

arrests and detention. Because the Petition and this action are being dismissed for the

reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s remaining motions will be denied. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s “Petition [Motion] for Emergency Injunction: To Stay All

Proceedings in State Cases” is denied. (Doc.# 3.)

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 6 of 7
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 - 7 -

(2) Petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by

a Person in State Custody is denied and this action dismissed without leave to amend.

(Doc.#1.) 

(3) Petitioner’s motions are denied. (Doc.# 6-11.)

(4) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 16th day of December, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-02214-MHM--LOA Document 13 Filed 12/22/09 Page 7 of 7