Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00798/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00798-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 KEITH A. NEAL, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

JUDGE PENNER, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:10-CV-00798 SMS HC

ORDER CONSTRUING COMPLAINT AS

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

ORDER DECLINING ISSUANCE OF

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He has returned his consent/decline form

indicating consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction.

On May 7, 2010, Petitioner filed a form complaint wherein he challenges his custody

claiming his state case should have been dismissed at the originally scheduled preliminary hearing,

but it was wrongfully continued. Petitioner seeks intervention by the federal court. He contends he

should be released from custody and compensated for his time spent in jail unlawfully. Because the

petition challenges Petitioner’s custody, the Court CONSTRUES the complaint as a petition for writ

of habeas corpus.

DISCUSSION

I. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent part:

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 1

Case 1:10-cv-00798-SMS Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 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

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not

entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk

to notify the petitioner. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. See Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9

th

Cir.2001).

II. Failure to Exhaust State Remedies

In this case, the determinative issue is whether comity and federalism preclude this Court

from intervening in the State’s criminal prosecution of Petitioner prior to trial. “As an exercise of

judicial restraint . . . federal courts elect not to entertain habeas corpus challenges to state court

proceedings until habeas petitioners have exhausted state avenues for raising federal claim[s].” 

Carden v. State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9 Cir.1980). Where, as in this case, a petitioner seeks th

pre-conviction habeas relief, “the exhaustion doctrine serves two purposes: (1) to avoid isolating

state courts from federal constitutional issues by assuring those courts an ample opportunity to

consider constitutional claims; and (2) to prevent federal interference with state adjudication,

especially state criminal trials.” Id. at 83; see Braden v. 30 Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 th

U.S. 484 (1973). 

In Braden, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the established rule that federal adjudication of an

affirmative defense prior to a state criminal trial violated the second of these two purposes and was

thus prohibited by principles of comity unless the Petitioner could show that “special circumstances”

warranted federal intervention. Carden, 626 F.2d at 83, quoting Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. The

“special circumstances” exception to the general rule against federal pre-conviction intervention was

set out by the Supreme Court in Perez v. Ledesma: 

Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials 

in bad faith and without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other

extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal 

injunctive relief against pending state prosecutions appropriate.

410 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). Petitioner’s claims fall well short of the above standards.

Petitioner does not state whether he has presented his claims to the superior court, appellate

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 2

Case 1:10-cv-00798-SMS Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 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

court, or California Supreme Court. Those avenues of relief appear to be available to Petitioner;

therefore, the instant petition is unexhausted. Moreover, this Court is required to exercise judicial

restraint pursuant to the exhaustion doctrine. Comity and federalism preclude this Court from

intervening in the State’s criminal prosecution of Petitioner unless Petitioner can demonstrate

“special circumstances” which would warrant federal intervention. Petitioner’s arguments do not

satisfy this exception. Petitioner does not provide any instance which demonstrates and proves

harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith. 

The petition for writ of habeas corpus currently before this Court is unexhausted and

premature. The Court must dismiss such a petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1).

III. Certificate of Appealability

A state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute entitlement to appeal a

district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only allowed in certain circumstances. MillerEl v. Cockrell, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003). The controlling statute in determining whether to issue

a certificate of appealability is 28 U.S.C. § 2253, which provides as follows:

 (a) In a habeas corpus proceeding or a proceeding under section 2255 before a 

district judge, the final order shall be subject to review, on appeal, by the court 

of appeals for the circuit in which the proceeding is held.

 (b) There shall be no right of appeal from a final order in a proceeding to test the 

validity of a warrant to remove to another district or place for commitment or trial 

a person charged with a criminal offense against the United States, or to test the 

validity of such person’s detention pending removal proceedings.

 (c) (1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an 

appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from–

 (A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the 

detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State 

court; or

 (B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.

 (2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the 

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

 (3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which 

specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).

If a court denies a petitioner’s petition, the court may only issue a certificate of appealability

“if jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 3

Case 1:10-cv-00798-SMS Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 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

that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at 1034; Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). While the

petitioner is not required to prove the merits of his case, he must demonstrate “something more than

the absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith on his . . . part.” Miller-El, 123 S.Ct. at

1040.

In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the Court’s

determination that Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief debatable, wrong, or

deserving of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has not made the required substantial

showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court hereby DECLINES to issue a

certificate of appealability.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The complaint is CONSTRUED as a petition for writ of habeas corpus;

2) The petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 

3) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment and close the case; and

4) The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 18, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

U.S. District Court

E. D. California cd 4

Case 1:10-cv-00798-SMS Document 6 Filed 06/21/10 Page 4 of 4