United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE OR AMEND
W. CHRISTEL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
District Court has referred this action to United States
Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. On June 19, 2019,
Petitioner David Q. Webb, a pre-trial detainee housed at
Kitsap County Jail, filed a proposed federal habeas Petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. Petitioner paid
the filing fee on July 9, 2019 and, on July 11, 2019,
Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. See Dkt. 5.
The Court has reviewed the Amended Petition and the Amended
Petition appears moot and is unexhausted. Further, it is
inappropriate for the Court to intervene in this case.
Therefore, the Court directs Petitioner to file a response to
this Order or an amended pleading by September 6, 2019.
Amended Petition, Petitioner contends his First, Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have
been violated related to his pending state criminal
proceedings. Dkt. 5. Petitioner requests the Court dismiss
the criminal cases pending against him and admonish Kitsap
County, the Port Orchard Police Department, and the Gig
Harbor Police Department. Id. Petitioner, however,
states the charges against him have been dismissed.
claims arise from his state criminal proceedings and
Petitioner requests the Court dismiss the criminal charges
against him. Dkt. 5, p. 38. A pretrial detainee is not a
“person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
Court” within the meaning of § 2254(a); however,
habeas corpus jurisdiction arises pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3), for prisoners whose custody is “in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the
United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
federal court to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be
an actual case or controversy at the time the case is
decided. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 422 U.S. 475, 401
(1973) (citations omitted) (“The rule in federal cases
is that an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of
review, not merely at the time the complaint is
filed.”). If a party seeking relief cannot obtain the
requested relief, that claim is moot and must be dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction. Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A.,
167 F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir. 1999).
Petitioner requests the Court dismiss his state criminal
charges. Dkt. 5, p. 38. However, he admits the state criminal
charges against him have been dismissed. See id. at
pp. 35-37; 48-49, 62-63. As the criminal charges have been
dismissed, Petitioner cannot obtain the requested relief,
making the claims in the Amended Petition moot. Thus,
Petitioner must show cause why this case should not be
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Ayala v.
Presiding Judge of Superior Court of California Cty. of San
Bernardino, 2014 WL 2608130, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 5,
2014), report and recommendation adopted, 2014 WL
2608125 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2014).
state prisoner must normally exhaust available state judicial
remedies before a federal court will entertain his petition
for habeas corpus.” Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S.
270, 275 (1971). Petitioner's claims will be considered
exhausted only after “the state courts [have been
afforded] a meaningful opportunity to consider allegations of
legal error without interference from the federal
judiciary.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254,
257 (1986). “[S]tate prisoners must give the state
courts one full opportunity to resolve any constitutional
issues by invoking one complete round of the State's
established appellate review.” O'Sullivan v.
Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999).
there is no exhaustion requirement mandated by 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has
held exhaustion is necessary as a matter of comity unless
special circumstances warrant federal intervention prior to a
state criminal trial. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d
82, 83-84 (9th Cir. 1980); see Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971). Petitioner fails to show he exhausted
state court remedies by presenting federal constitutional or
statutory claims to the Washington state trial and appellate
courts in the ongoing criminal proceedings against him.
Petitioner has also not shown special circumstances warrant
federal intervention in this case. Therefore, Petitioner must
show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure
to exhaust state remedies.
case may also be inappropriate in federal court under the
Younger abstention doctrine. Under Younger,
abstention from interference with pending state judicial
proceedings is appropriate when: “(1) there is
‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding'; (2) the
proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state
interests'; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity
in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
challenges'; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s]
to enjoin' or has ‘the practical effect of
enjoining' the ongoing state judicial proceeding.”
Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir.
2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp.
Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). Federal
courts, however, do not invoke the Younger
abstention if there is a ...