Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01252/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01252-1/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)

---

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

Order of Dismissal; Deny COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01252Stewart-Fleming_dismiss Younger.wpd

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL STEWART-FLEMING,

Petitioner,

 v.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 15-01252 EJD (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

DENYING CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because

Petitioner is a pretrial detainee and not in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state

court, the Court construes the petition as being brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a prisoner

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

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show

cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that

Case 5:15-cv-01252-EJD Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 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

Order of Dismissal; Deny COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01252Stewart-Fleming_dismiss Younger.wpd

2

the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Legal Claims

According to the petition, Petitioner was taken into custody by the San Jose

Police Department on January 26, 2015, pursuant to a June 2014 Ramey warrant

which alleged that Petitioner committed five counts of robbery in the second degree,

and that Petitioner was armed with a handgun during the commission of these

robberies. (Docket No. 1 at 3 and 20–26.) Petitioner alleges that his custody

violates his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because he was not

formally charged within 48 hours of being arrested pursuant to a Ramey warrant;

because his public defender was not providing effective assistance of counsel; and

because his public defender is conspiring with the prosecutor to convict him. (Id. at

3–5.) Petitioner also alleges that his custody is in violation of the Fourth

Amendment because the warrant was not based upon probable cause. (Id. at 6–7.) 

Petitioner seeks immediate release from custody and that all criminal charges be

dropped. 

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). Younger abstention is required when (1) state proceedings,

judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state

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

constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Abstention is appropriate here because all of the

elements of Younger are present. As to the first Younger element, it appears that

Petitioner’s state court proceedings are ongoing since Petitioner is seeking release

from custody and that charges against him be dropped. As to the second Younger

element, the Supreme Court has held that “a proper respect for state functions,” such

as ongoing criminal trial proceedings, is an important issue of state interest. See

Case 5:15-cv-01252-EJD Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 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

Order of Dismissal; Deny COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01252Stewart-Fleming_dismiss Younger.wpd

3

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491–92 (1973) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at

44). As to the third prong of Younger, the Court finds no reason that Petitioner

cannot pursue his constitutional claims in state court. Thus, Younger abstention is

applicable here. In applying Younger, the Ninth Circuit has held that Younger

abstention is only appropriate where the federal court action would have the same

practical effect on the state proceeding as a formal injunction. Gilbertson v.

Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977–78 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, the relief sought by 

Petitioner — release from custody and dismissal of all pending criminal charges

against him — would have the practical effect of enjoining the state court

proceedings. 

Finally, although Younger abstention does not apply in cases where

extraordinary circumstances threaten great, immediate and irreparable injury, see

Younger, 401 U.S. at 45–46, 53–54 (irreparable injury shown where statute

flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions); Perez v.

Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (federal injunctive relief in pending state

prosecutions proper in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by

state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction), Petitioner

fails to demonstrate that this is such a case. Plaintiff has not proven harassment or

made a showing that the prosecution was undertaken by state officials in bad faith

without hope of obtaining a valid conviction. Although Plaintiff alleges that he is

physically incapable of committing the charged crimes because he is a parapalegic,

he acknowledges that the prosecution and police have alleged that his fingerprints tie

him to the alleged crimes.

Accordingly, this Court will abstain and DISMISS the petition without

prejudice. Petitioner’s alleged constitutional violations are matters that can and

should be addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then by the state

appellate courts, before he seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus. 

Petitioner is advised that he should not file a new federal petition for a writ of

Case 5:15-cv-01252-EJD Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 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

Order of Dismissal; Deny COA

P:\PRO-SE\EJD\HC.15\01252Stewart-Fleming_dismiss Younger.wpd

4

habeas corpus unless and until he gets convicted, and then not until his direct appeal

and state habeas proceedings have concluded and he has given the state’s high court

a fair opportunity to rule on each of his claims. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice to Petitioner’s returning to federal court after the conclusion of state

proceedings and exhausting his state court remedies.

No certificate of appealability is warranted in this case. See Rule 11(a) of the

Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (requiring district court to

rule on certificate of appealability in same order that denies petition). Petitioner has

not shown “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a

valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find

it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

DATED: 

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge 

6/1/2015

Case 5:15-cv-01252-EJD Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 4 of 5
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

MICHAEL STEWART-FLEMING,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-01252-EJD 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. 

District Court, Northern District of California.

That on 6/2/2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office.

Michael Stewart-Fleming

P.O. Box 1212

Stockton, CA 95201 

Dated: 6/2/2015

Richard W. Wieking

Clerk, United States District Court

By:________________________

Elizabeth Garcia, Deputy Clerk to the 

Honorable EDWARD J. DAVILA

Case 5:15-cv-01252-EJD Document 5 Filed 06/02/15 Page 5 of 5