1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISMAEL VALDEZ, S-264952, Case No. 21-cv-02565-CRB (PR)

8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 9 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ JAIL, APPEALABILITY 11 Respondent. (ECF No. 2)

12 I. 13 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee facing numerous state criminal charges in Santa Cruz County 14 Superior Court, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued 15 pretrial detention as well as various conditions of his confinement at the Santa Cruz County Main 16 Jail. Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

. 17 Based solely on his affidavit of poverty, petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF No. 2) is 18 GRANTED. 19 II. 20 Petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a 21 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. But principles of comity and 22 federalism require that this court abstain and not entertain any such pre-sentence habeas challenge 23 unless petitioner shows that: (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) 24 “special circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana,

(9th 25 Cir. 1980). Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in 26 bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other special circumstances 27 where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state ] Here, petitioner has not exhausted available state judicial remedies by pursuing a petition 2 || for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his pretrial detention all the way to the Supreme Court of 3 California. Nor has he shown “special circumstances” warranting federal intervention in his pre- 4 || sentence habeas challenge. See

Petitioner’s federal habeas challenge to his state pretrial 5 detention must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling after state criminal proceedings, 6 || including appeal, are completed and petitioner has exhausted available state judicial remedies. 7 Petitioner’s federal habeas challenge to various conditions of his confinement at the Santa 8 Cruz County Maim Jail must be dismissed without prejudice to bringing in a civil rights complaint 9 || under

. It is well established that “habeas jurisdiction is absent, and a § 1983 10 || action proper,” where, as here, “a successful challenge to a prison condition will not necessarily 11 shorten the prisoner’s [detention].” Ramirez v. Galaza,

(9th Cir. 2003). 12 HI. 13 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without 14 || prejudice as set forth above. 8 15 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 16 || appealability (COA) under

(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that “jurists i 17 || of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a Zz 18 constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 19 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (emphasis added). 20 The clerk is instructed to close the file and terminate all pending motions as moot. 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: April 15, 2021 23 a ka» CHARLES R. BREYER 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28