United States District Court, S.D. California
ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Petitioner,
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF, et al., Respondents.
ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS; AND (2) DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
MICHAEL M. ANELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis but she has
not provided the Court with sufficient information to
determine her financial status. A request to proceed in forma
pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a certificate
from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the
amount of money or securities Petitioner has on account in
the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254;
Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court
with the required Prison Certificate.
event, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear
that this Court is barred from consideration of the claims by
the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger,
federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id.
at 45-46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden
State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)
(Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy
against federal-court interference with pending state
judicial proceedings.”). These concerns are
particularly important in the habeas context where a state
prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal,
thereby rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v.
Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).
extraordinary circumstances, abstention under
Younger is required when: (1) state judicial
proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings
afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issue.
Columbia Basin Apartment Ass'n v. City of Pasco,
268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). All three of these
criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the
instant Petition, she states she was arrested on August 14,
2019, and that her preliminary hearing is “in
schedule.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2, 10.) Thus,
Petitioner’s criminal case is still ongoing in the
state courts. Further, there is no question that the state
criminal proceedings involve important state interests.
Petitioner has failed to show that she has not been afforded
an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct
appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to support a contention
that the state courts do not provide her an adequate
opportunity to raise her claims, and this Court specifically
rejects such an argument. Indeed, Petitioner’s claims
of false arrest and ineffective assistance of counsel are the
type of claims that state courts provide an opportunity to
raise on direct appeal. Abstention is therefore required.
See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.
1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a
defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of
injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in,
judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in
the state courts.”) Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist which
would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from
interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings.
Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding
that if Younger abstention applies, a court may not
retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.)
NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
some of the claims Petitioner raises in her Petition are not
properly brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Title 28,
United States Code, § 2254(a), sets forth the following
scope of review for federal habeas corpus claims:
The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit judge, or a
district court shall entertain an application for a writ of
habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to
the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
claims two and three, Petitioner claims “jail
conditions are hostile, irritable, unhealthy, and low
functioning.” (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 7.) She also alleges
that “jail medical refuses to honor [her] records of
diabetes and administer treatment.” (Id.) She
complains about a lack of access to special religious diets,
lack of healthy food, recreation, showers, legal research
materials, sanitation, and mental health resources.
(Id.) She also alleges that “gender variant
inmates are not given much to maintain gender identity,
” there are “no gender variant support resources
or housing . . . safely available in jail.”
(Id. at 8.) These claims do not allege Petitioner is
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” and are not cognizable
on habeas because they do not challenge the constitutional
validity or duration of confinement. See 28 U.S.C.
2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500
(1973); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480-85
to the fact or duration of confinement are brought by
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254; challenges to conditions of confinement are
brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
1983. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 488-500. When a state
prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his
physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a
determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a
speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. Id. at 500. On
the other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a
state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge ...