United States District Court, N.D. California
March 18, 2004.
MICHAEL JOHN SULLIVAN, Petitioner,
WARREN RUPF, Sheriff, Respondent
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARTIN JENKINS, District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Michael John Sullivan filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he claimed that he was being
subjected to criminal prosecution in state court in violation of his
rights under the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. At the time he filed his petition, Sullivan was awaiting
trial in the Contra Costa County Superior Court on six counts of
robbery, Cal. Penal Code § 211, based on his alleged robbery of six banks
or financial institutions. Sullivan has since been convicted, but
apparently has not yet been sentenced.
The contentions in this petition are identical to contentions
petitioner made in a prior petition in this Court, Sullivan v. Rupf, No. C
99-1526 MJJ (PR). In that case, the Court granted respondent's motion to
dismiss that action on the grounds that the
Court should abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because
petitioner had not yet been sentenced. In the instant case, petitioner
indicates that he still has not been sentenced for the convictions he
purports to challenge. As petitioner's circumstances have not materially
changed since the dismissal of his prior petition, the instant petition
must be dismissed for the reasons explained in the March 8, 2000 Order
dismissing the prior petition.
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED.
The clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE
() Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by
jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.'
(X) Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the
Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been
IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
Pursuant to the order filed March 19, 2004, this case is dismissed.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.