IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 14, 2009
STEVE BADUE, PETITIONER,
MEEGAN, ET AL., RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, a county jail inmate proceeding pro se has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.*fn1
Petitioner names as defendants, a superior court judge and two deputy district attorneys. Petitioner, who is in pretrial detention, alleges that a deputy district attorney fabricated a rebuttal argument to petitioner's "motion for own recognizance" at a preliminary hearing. Petitioner alleges that the judge accepted the deputy district attorney's argument without proper proof and petitioner has remained in detention.
Petitioner seeks this court to grant his "motion for own recognizance," that the court interprets to mean release from detention or habeas relief.
It appears that petitioner is attempting to challenge ongoing criminal proceedings against him. Principles of comity and federalism weigh against a federal court interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of extraordinary circumstances that warrant interference in the ongoing state criminal proceedings. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine described above.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to re-designate this action as one brought by 28 U.S.C. § 2254.