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 August 20, 2019,
Petitioner Patrick J. Ives, a pre-trial detainee housed at
Kitsap County Jail, filed a proposed federal habeas Petition
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. After filing the
proposed Petition, Petitioner paid the filing fee.
See Docket. The Court has now reviewed the Petition
and finds the Petition is unexhausted and improperly
challenges conditions of confinement. 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 November 15, 2019.
Petition, Petitioner contends his First, Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated related to his
arrest and pending state criminal proceedings. Dkt. 3;
see also Dkt. 4.
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. It is, however, unclear if
Petitioner is raising claims that would effectively enjoin
the ongoing state judicial proceeding. For example,
Petitioner appears to allege his bail is excessive in
violation of the Eighth Amendment, which may not require the
federal court to abstain from hearing this case. See
Dkt. 3, 4; Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 766 (finding
Younger abstention not appropriate where the issues
raised challenged a bail hearing). As the Younger
abstention may apply to Petitioner's claims, Petitioner
must show cause why this case should not be dismissed under
Conditions of Confinement
Petition, Petitioner details his arrest details and current
incarceration. Dkt. 3. Petitioner alleges the police used
excessive force and violated his First Amendment rights
during the arrest, but he also alleges he is being held on an
excessive bail. See Dkt. 3, 4. Petitioner does not
clearly state the relief he is seeking.
“action lying at the core of habeas corpus is one that
goes directly to the constitutionality of the prisoner's
physical confinement itself and seeks either immediate
release from that confinement or the shortening of its
duration. With regard to such actions, habeas corpus is now
considered the prisoner's exclusive remedy.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 503 (1973)
(internal quotation omitted). “A civil rights action,