(HC) Watkins v. Tuolumne County Superior Court, No. 1:2018cv00876 - Document 40 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Recommending Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 09/11/2018. Referred to Judge Ishii; Objections to F&R due by 10/15/2018. (Flores, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND WATKINS, 12 Petitioner, Case No. 1:18-cv-00876-AWI-EPG-HC FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS v. 13 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,1 14 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Raymond Watkins is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition 18 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therein, Petitioner alleges judicial 20 misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccurate state records, and ineffective assistance of 21 counsel. Petitioner also appears to challenge the state court’s competency proceedings. Petitioner is currently involved in criminal proceedings in the Tuolumne County Superior 22 23 Court. Petitioner has not yet been convicted of any offense, and he has not gone through any 24 appeals. Based on abstention and exhaustion principles, the Court declines to intervene in the 25 state proceedings and recommends dismissal of the petition without prejudice. 26 27 28 1 The Court notes that Petitioner has not named a proper Respondent, such as the warden of the facility in which he is held. See Rule 2(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004); Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). While the Court would generally give Petitioner an opportunity to amend the name of Respondent, amendment is futile because the undersigned recommends that the petition be dismissed for nonexhaustion and abstention. 1 1 I. 2 BACKGROUND Petitioner is currently confined at the Tuolumne County jail. (ECF No. 1 at 1).2 On June 3 4 26, 2018, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition, wherein Petitioner alleges judicial 5 misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccurate state records, and ineffective assistance of 6 counsel. Petitioner also appears to challenge the state court’s competency proceedings. (Id. at 3– 7 9). On July 10, 2018, the undersigned ordered Petitioner to show cause why the petition should 8 not be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). (ECF No. 4). To date, 9 Petitioner has filed more than twenty-five documents with the Court. (ECF Nos. 5–12, 15–17, 10 19–36). 11 II. 12 DISCUSSION 13 14 15 16 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases3 requires preliminary review of a habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” 17 A. Abstention 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that when there is a pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution absent special or extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. at 45. The Ninth Circuit has held that the “logical implication” of Younger “is that abstention principles likewise prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant federal intervention.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 901 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980)). Extraordinary circumstances include “cases of 26 2 27 28 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.). 3 2 1 proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of 2 obtaining a valid conviction,” or situations “where irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown, 676 3 F.3d at 903 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Carden, 626 F.2d at 84). The Ninth 4 Circuit has interpreted Younger to mean that “only in the most unusual circumstances is a 5 defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after 6 the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.” 7 Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. 1972). 8 On July 26, 2018, the Court received a statement of fact, which appears to be Petitioner’s 9 response to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 24). Petitioner states that he was arrested on 10 September 29, 2016, and then “illegally” transferred to the Stanislaus County jail on October 31, 11 2016, and “rebooked . . . there.” (ECF No. 24 at 1). Petitioner “believe[s] this rebooking was to 12 create a new DA case # and therefore a new case.” (Id.). On November 14, 2016, Petitioner was 13 released on bail. At the time Petitioner was released on bail, his charges included violations of 14 California Penal Code sections 148, 273.5, and 591. (ECF No. 24 at 1–2). When Petitioner was 15 “rebooked” on March 7, 2018, Petitioner called the bail bond company and “was told that the 16 charges that [Petitioner] bailed out on were dropped.” However, as of July 6, 2018, the charges 17 “are now valid again.” (Id. at 2). Petitioner focuses on his difficulty in obtaining discovery and 18 states that he “believe[s] [he] can prove harassment by the original charges being dropped and 19 new charges being picked back up.” (ECF No. 24 at 3). Petitioner contends that this shows that 20 the original charges were undertaken without hope of gaining a valid conviction. In his other 21 submissions to the Court, Petitioner makes general allegations of corrupt public officials, judicial 22 misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, inaccurate state records, ineffective assistance of counsel, 23 inability to speak with defense counsel, and access to courts. Petitioner appears to challenge the 24 state court’s competency proceedings. Petitioner also complains of various conditions of his 25 confinement and issues with the bail bond company. 26 Based on the foregoing, Petitioner has not made any showing of extraordinary 27 circumstances that would render abstention inappropriate. The fact that Petitioner’s original 28 charges were dropped and a superseding charging document was filed does not demonstrate 3 1 proven harassment or that the prosecution was undertaken in bad faith without hope of obtaining 2 a valid conviction. See Brown, 676 F.3d at 903. Additionally, Petitioner fails to establish that he 3 does not have an opportunity to raise his federal constitutional claims in the state criminal 4 proceedings. See Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (holding that federal courts 5 should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate opportunity for consideration of 6 constitutional claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”); Moore v. Sims, 7 442 U.S. 415, 425 (1979) (quoting Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977)) (“[I]n the 8 abstention context, the federal court should not exert jurisdiction if the plaintiffs ‘had 9 an opportunity to present their federal claims in the state proceedings.’”). Accordingly, as the 10 instant petition challenges Petitioner’s ongoing criminal proceeding in state court, the Court 11 should abstain from interfering with the state judicial process, and the petition should be 12 dismissed. 13 B. Exhaustion 14 “As a prudential matter, courts require that habeas petitioners exhaust all available 15 judicial and administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Ward v. Chavez, 678 16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 17 2001), abrogated on other grounds by Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006)). The 18 exhaustion requirement is subject to waiver in § 2241 proceedings if pursuing available remedies 19 would be futile. Ward, 678 F.3d at 1045. Here, there is no indication that Petitioner has pursued 20 his claims in the state court of appeal or in the California Supreme Court. It appears from the 21 face of the petition that Petitioner has failed to exhaust his state court remedies, and Petitioner 22 has not established that exhaustion would be futile. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 23 III. 24 RECOMMENDATION 25 Accordingly, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 26 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice; and 27 2. All pending motions be DENIED as MOOT. 28 /// 4 1 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 3 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 4 Within thirty (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file 5 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 6 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 7 United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 9 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 10 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 11, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
