Dilnessa v. Butte County Sheriff's Department
Dilnessa v. Butte County Sheriff's Department
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 AYALNEH DILNESSA, Case No. 23-cv-00885-TLT
8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. 9
10 BUTTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 11 Defendant.
12 13 INTRODUCTION 14 This is a habeas case filed pro se by a petitioner who is confined at Napa State Hospital, 15 apparently as a pretrial detainee for restoration of competency. His motion for leave to proceed in 16 forma pauperis (ECF 2) is GRANTED. For the reasons stated below, the petition will be 17 dismissed. 18 BACKGROUND 19 According to petitioner’s previously filed petition in this Court, he is awaiting trial on 20 charges of assault with a deadly weapon and was sent to Napa State Hospital pursuant to 21 California Penal Code section 1370, which requires that a trial be suspended if a person is found 22 mentally incompetent to stand trial. See Case No. 23-cv-00784-TLT, ECF 1 at 2; Cal. Penal Code 23 § 1370(a)(B). 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Standard of Review 26 A petitioner may challenge his pretrial detention on state criminal charges by way of a 27 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), which provides habeas 1 the United States. However, principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain 2 and not entertain a petitioner’s pre-conviction habeas challenge unless he shows that: (1) he has 3 exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special circumstances” warrant federal 4 intervention. See Carden v. Montana,
626 F.2d 82, 83-84(9th Cir. 1980). “Special 5 circumstances” warranting federal intervention include cases of “proven harassment or 6 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction 7 and perhaps other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”
Id.at 8 84 (citing Perez v. Ledesma,
401 U.S. 82, 85(1971)). 9 B. Petitioner’s Claims 10 Petitioner states that his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent was violated and that he is 11 being held against his will, in violation of due process, without a bona fide government warrant 12 and in breach of the constitution. ECF 1 at 5. He states that unjustified inhumanities took place 13 over the last forty years since his arrival to the United States and describes tragic incidents 14 involving his family that took place many years ago. Id. at 7-10. He concludes: “for all those 15 inhuman crimes against my children the DA of Butte County refused to file charges against those 16 who are responsible for unknown reason (I think it is racism) but when I got in common conflict 17 with my roommate . . . I was arrested.” Id. at 10. Petitioner mentions that he repeatedly requested 18 a Marsden hearing and that his public defender failed to inform him about crucial matters in his 19 case. Id. at 11. 20 Petitioner seeks compensation “to help me and my kids heal the wound and injustice done 21 to us over decades by all those authorities and officials who believe in the color of people’s skin 22 and origin of country.” Id. at 16. 23 Petitioner has not exhausted his claims, nor does he demonstrate special circumstances 24 warranting intervention into his ongoing state criminal proceedings. Petitioner also fails to state 25 any cognizable claims for federal habeas relief. The petition will therefore be dismissed without 26 prejudice to refiling a habeas petition if special circumstances arise, or to refiling under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 2254 after all state proceedings, including appeal, are completed. 1 C. Certificate of Appealability 2 A certificate of appealability will not issue. See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). This is not a case in 3 || which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 4 debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000). 5 CONCLUSION 6 Petitioner is permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, but, for the foregoing reasons, the 7 || petition is DISMISSED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall enter 8 || judgment in favor of respondent and close the file. 9 This Order terminates docket number 2. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: July 3, 2023 12
TRINA L: PSON 14 United States District Judge 15
16
17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown