Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01394/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-01394-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
District Attorney
Respondent
Andre M. Ferguson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE M. FERGUSON,

Petitioner,

v.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY,

Respondent. ____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1394 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL;

GRANTING LEAVE TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

(Docket No. 2)

On March 11, 2008, petitioner, a California pretrial detainee incarcerated at the San

Francisco County Jail in San Bruno, California, and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner was arrested on

November 27, 2007, and is awaiting trial in the San Francisco County Superior Court. 

Petitioner claims his prosecution is unlawful because he was arraigned belatedly, in violation

of his right to a speedy trial. He has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

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, 43-46 (1971); see also

Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1980) (applying Younger to habeas petition

challenging state pretrial proceedings). 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

issues. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432

Case 3:08-cv-01394-MMC Document 3 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 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

2

(1982). The rationale of Younger applies throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that

state appellate review of a state court judgment be completed before federal court

intervention is permitted. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11 (1975). 

Here, criminal proceedings are pending against petitioner in state court and there is no

indication that petitioner does not have an adequate opportunity to present his claim in those

proceedings. Indeed, petitioner has attached to his petition a copy of a motion to dismiss the

charges against him on the ground that his speedy trial rights were violated, which motion

was prepared by petitioner’s counsel and filed in the Superior Court on January 24, 2008. 

Moreover, petitioner has made no showing that extraordinary circumstances exist that would

require federal intervention. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 (holding extraordinary

circumstances exist when there is danger of great and immediate irreparable loss; holding

cost, anxiety and inconvenience of defending against good-faith criminal prosecution not

extraordinary circumstance requiring federal intervention); see also Carden, 626 F.2d at 84

(holding federal intervention appropriate only under “special circumstances” such as proven

harassment, bad faith prosecution, or other extraordinary circumstances resulting in

irreparable injury). 

As a decision on the instant federal petition would interfere with the criminal

proceedings pending against petitioner in state court, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. 

The dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once his

state criminal proceedings are completed and he has exhausted state court remedies

concerning all claims he wishes to raise in federal court. 

In light of petitioner’s lack of funds, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED.

This order terminates Docket No. 2.

The Clerk shall close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 30, 2008 ____________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-01394-MMC Document 3 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 2