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 July 15, 2019,
Petitioner Alphonso Curtis Brownlee, a pre-trial detainee
housed at the Kitsap County Jail, filed a federal habeas
Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. The Court
has reviewed the Petition and concludes the Petition is
unexhausted and 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.
Petition, Petitioner contends Respondent State of Washington
violated his First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights
related to his state court proceedings and criminal charges.
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 “showing of bad faith,
harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that
would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex
County Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n,
457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982).
Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee with ongoing state
proceedings. Second, as these proceedings involve a criminal
prosecution, they implicate important state interests.
See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49, (1986);
Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44. Third, Petitioner has
failed to allege facts showing he has been denied an adequate
opportunity to address the alleged constitutional violations
in the state court proceedings. Last, Petitioner raises
claims that would effectively enjoin the ongoing state
judicial proceeding. As the Younger abstention
applies to Petitioner's claims, Petitioner must show
cause why this case should not be dismissed under
Conditions of Confinement
Court notes Petitioner may be attempting to challenge the
conditions of his confinement, not his physical confinement
itself. See Dkt. 3, 4. If he is attempting to
challenge the conditions of his confinement, Petitioner must
file a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Badea v. Cox, 931 F.3d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991).
Instructions to ...