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 October 10, 2019,
Petitioner Brian Judah Michalek, a pre-trial detainee housed
at Jefferson County Jail, filed a proposed federal habeas
Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt.
The Court has now reviewed the Petition and finds the
Petition improperly challenges conditions of confinement 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 February 10, 2020.
unclear, Petitioner appears to contend his constitutional
rights were violated related to his arrest and pending state
criminal proceedings. Dkt. 9. He requests immediate release
Conditions of Confinement
Petition, Petitioner details his arrests and current
incarceration. Dkt. 9. Petitioner appears to allege the
police used excessive force. Petitioner does not clearly
state the relief he is seeking or challenge the
constitutionality of his physical confinement.
“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,
in contrast, is the proper method of challenging conditions
of confinement.” Badea v. Cox, 931 F.3d 573,
574 (9th Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff filed a habeas petition under § 2241, wherein
he challenges the conditions of his arrests and confinement.
Petitioner cannot challenge the conditions of his arrest or
confinement in a § 2241 petition. Therefore, any
challenges to the conditions of his arrests and confinement
cannot proceed in this lawsuit. Accordingly, Petitioner must
show cause why claims challenging the conditions of his
arrests and confinement shall not be dismissed.
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 courts have 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
case is also 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 ...