The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner, perhaps a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. This case is before the undersigned pursuant to petitioner's consent. Doc. 4.
Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
On December 15, 2010, the court dismissed the petition with leave to amend noting that it was not clear if petitioner has been convicted or instead wanted the court to find his appointed counsel ineffective in his pending case. Petitioner has filed an amended petition.
While the nature of petitioner's case is still not entirely clear, he has stated that the instant petition involves a pending case in Orange County Superior Court but also somehow concerns staff at Mule Creek State Prison. Regardless, this court should not interfere with a state proceeding.
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) state proceedings involve important state interests; and 3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
Based on Younger and petitioner's inability to present any coherent claim that could be construed in a habeas petition or even in a civil rights complaint, this petition is dismissed.
In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted;
2. The petition is dismissed and this case is closed.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...