(HC) Hale v. State of Califoria et al, No. 2:2018cv03138 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/1/2019 GRANTING 2 Motion to Proceed IFP and RECOMMENDING 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be summarily dismissed and this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIN ELIZABETH HALE, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-3138 MCE CKD P v. ORDER AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a Placer County Jail pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for 18 a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 together with a request to proceed in forma 19 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Examination of the request to proceed in forma pauperis 20 reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the request for leave to 21 proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the court must review all 23 petitions for writ of habeas corpus and summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the 24 petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court has conducted that review. 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 Petitioner asserts that she has been subject to a false arrest. There are several problems 2 with petitioner’s claim: petitioner has not shown she has exhausted state court remedies with 3 respect to her claim,1 petitioner has not shown that there was not probable cause for her arrest,2 4 and challenges to ongoing criminal proceedings are generally barred by the doctrine set forth in 5 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). For these reasons, the court will recommend that 6 petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request for leave to proceed in 7 8 forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted. 9 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be summarily dismissed; and 11 2. This case be closed. 12 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 13 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 14 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 15 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 16 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In her objections, petitioner may address whether a 17 certificate of appealability should issue in the event she files an appeal of the judgment in this 18 case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or 19 deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). Where, as 20 here, a habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should 21 issue if the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the 22 district court was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it 23 debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris 24 v. Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 25 ///// 26 1 27 The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). 28 2 Under the Fourth Amendment, any arrest must be supported by probable cause. 2 1 (2000)). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive 2 the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 Dated: April 1, 2019 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 crai0061.114 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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.