Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06154/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06154-0/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN D. GALLOT,

Petitioner,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-cv-06154-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Glenn Daniel Gallot filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus. Pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2243 and Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 

Courts, the court reviewed the petition and dismissed it with leave to amend. The court explained 

that the “petition has three fundamental problems: the petition does not clearly identify the 

decision being challenged, does not show that Gallot is in custody as a result of that decision, and 

does not adequately describe his claims.” Docket No. 6 at 1. The court explained those problems 

in more detail and ordered Gallot to file an amended petition curing the deficiencies addressed in 

the order. See id. at 2-3.

Gallot thereafter filed several documents, one of which appears to be his effort at an 

amended petition. See Docket No. 8. In that document, Gallot states that he is challenging a 

conservatorship from an unknown date but then describes problems with the criminal proceedings 

pending against him in San Francisco County Superior Court. Gallot alleges that he was sent to 

Metropolitan State Hospital on July 7, 2016 “for a competency test” to determine whether he 

could represent himself. Id. at 1. He further alleges that he “proved [he] was competent in 2014” 

and is now being denied a speedy trial and being deprived of his right to represent himself in the 

criminal case(s) pending against him. Id. He attaches to the filing a 2-page “booking card” that 

Case 3:16-cv-06154-SI Document 12 Filed 02/16/17 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

(when read in combination with the text of his letter) indicates that he was returned from the 

Metropolitan State Hospital to the San Francisco County Jail on December 14, 2016, pursuant to 

court order, to face trial on several charges pending since 2014. The charges pending against him 

from 2014 are listed as: making criminal threats, false imprisonment, battery, and assault with 

force likely to commit great bodily injury. Docket No. 8 at 3-4. 

Among the other documents Gallot sent to the court is a January 17, 2017 letter from 

attorney Christopher Dove to Gallot that provides some additional information about Gallot’s 

situation. Attorney Dove wrote that Gallot had been sent back to San Francisco County Superior 

Court from the Department of State Hospitals (“DSH”) with a report stating the DSH believed 

Gallot to be unable to become competent to stand trial and asking the court to evaluate Gallot for a 

conservatorship. Docket No. 12. A hearing date was set for January 23, 2017 for the status of the 

conservatorship proceedings. Id. 

It thus appears that Gallot is in custody as a pretrial detainee on the criminal charges. It is 

possible that he might in the future be subjected to a conservatorship, but he does not now appear 

to be in custody pursuant to a conservatorship.

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(c)(3) by a person who is in custody but not yet convicted or sentenced. See McNeely v. 

Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003); Application of Floyd, 413 F. Supp. 574, 576 (D. 

Nev. 1976). But principles of comity and federalism require that a federal district court abstain 

and not entertain a pretrial habeas challenge unless the petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted 

available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. 

Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (1980); see also Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 

(1971) (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). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by 

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

special circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against 

pending state prosecutions appropriate. Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma, 401 

Case 3:16-cv-06154-SI Document 12 Filed 02/16/17 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). 

Gallot makes no such showing of “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention

in the ongoing state criminal proceedings. See id. The petition for writ of habeas corpus 

accordingly is DISMISSED. This dismissal is without prejudice to Gallot filing a new petition for 

writ of habeas corpus if he is ever convicted, but he should not file such a petition until after the 

state criminal proceedings, including appeal, are completed. 

If the San Francisco County Superior Court ever orders Gallot to be put under a 

conservatorship and puts him in custody as a result of that order, he may file a new petition for 

writ of habeas corpus to challenge the conservatorship decision after he exhausts state court 

remedies for such a petition. 

Gallot has complained about the conditions of confinement at Metropolitan State Hospital 

and the San Francisco County Jail in several of his letters. A federal habeas action is not the 

correct vehicle to assert claims about the conditions of one’s confinement. If Gallot wishes to 

complain that his conditions of confinement violate his federal constitutional rights, he should file 

a civil rights complaint. 

The clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 16, 2017

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06154-SI Document 12 Filed 02/16/17 Page 3 of 3