Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04070/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04070-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ben McLain
Respondent
Alfonso Mouzon
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

Petitioner filed his petition on a form for petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2254, which statute provides habeas corpus jurisdiction over persons held in custody

pursuant to the judgment of a state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). On August 28, 2007,

petitioner filed additional facts and argument in support of the petition; in such additional

filing he makes clear that because he is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment, he

is bringing his petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which provides habeas corpus

jurisdiction over any person held in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFONSO MOUZON,

Petitioner,

 v.

BEN MCLAIN, Executive Director, 

Respondent. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4070 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY

(Docket No. 8)

On August 8, 2007, petitioner, a civil detainee confined at Coalinga State Hospital and

awaiting civil commitment proceedings, filed the above-titled petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 On November 29, 2007, the Court dismissed the

petition on abstention grounds under the rationale of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-46

(1971) (holding federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings

absent extraordinary circumstances), and Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (finding policies underlying Younger abstention fully

applicable to noncriminal judicial proceedings when important state interests involved and

state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims). The dismissal

Case 3:07-cv-04070-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 1 of 2
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

2

was without prejudice to petitioner’s filing a new federal habeas petition once his state civil

commitment proceedings are completed and he has exhausted state court remedies

concerning all claims he wishes to raise in federal court. 

On December 12, 2007, petitioner filed a notice of appeal, which the Court construes

as including a request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b). See United States v. Asrar, 116

F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). It is an open question in the Ninth Circuit whether a state

pretrial detainee who files a habeas petition under § 2241 must obtain a COA in order to

appeal. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 832 n.10 (9th Cir 2003). However, other

circuits have held that such petitioners must obtain a COA. See id. Assuming a COA is

required in this case, petitioner’s request for a COA will be denied. Petitioner has not

demonstrated 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).

Accordingly, the request for a certificate of appealability is hereby DENIED.

The Clerk shall forward this order, along with the case file, to the United States Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, from which petitioner also may seek a COA. See Asrar,

116 F.3d at 1270.

This order terminates Docket No. 8. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 2, 2008 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04070-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/02/08 Page 2 of 2