Haynes v. Commander Croskey

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON CLAY VINSON HAYNES, NO: 4:19-CV-5182-TOR 9 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION FOR 10 v. FAILURE TO EXHAUST COMMANDER TOM CROSKEY, 12 Respondent.

14 BEFORE THE COURT is Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 10. Petitioner, a pretrial detainee at the Benton County Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.

17 Respondent has not been served.

18 It plainly appears from the documents presented that Petitioner did not exhaust his state court remedies. Therefore, this action will be dismissed. See Peterson v. Lampert, 319 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2003). Petitioner has presented no basis for this Court’s intervention in pending state court proceedings. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).

3 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this action is DISMISSED 4|| WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

5 All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

6 Petitioner’s in forma pauperis status is REVOKED.

7 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to enter this Order, 8|| enter judgment, provide copies to Petitioner, and close the file. The Court certifies 9|| that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED.

13 DATED November 6, 2019. “| Ae kai □□ ae KWOK, 0 Kee 15 Over WIN HOMAS O. RICE □□□ Chief United States District Judge