Raulie v. Gore

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN ADAM RAULIE, Case No. 21cv480-MMA-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 SHERIFF BILL GORE and SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Brian Adam Raulie is an individual in state custody proceeding pro se 19 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Doc. No. 1. 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition.1 21 DISCUSSION 22 Petitioner is currently confined at Vista Detention Center in Vista, California, in 23 the custody of the San Diego County Sheriff. Petitioner claims to be serving a sentence 24 following a state court conviction; according to the Sheriff’s online database, Petitioner is 25 26 27 1 A court may summarily dismiss a petition when “it appears from the application that the applicant or 28 1 also an alleged fugitive being held pending extradition on charges pursuant to California 2 Penal Code section 1551.1.2 3 Petitioner has instituted the current proceeding pursuant to Title 28, section 2241, 4 alleging that he has “settled” all “outstanding” financial “liabilities” and therefore may 5 not be held in the custody of state authorities. Doc. No. 1 at 4. 6 The Court must conduct a preliminary review and then summarily dismiss a habeas 7 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 8 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . ..”3 Pro se habeas petitions are to 9 be liberally construed. Tatum v. Christensen, 786 F.2d 959, 963 n. 4 (9th Cir. 1985). 10 However, the court may summarily dismiss a petition if it plainly appears from the face 11 of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 12 490 (9th Cir. 1990). Summary dismissal is appropriate if the allegations in the petition 13 are “vague [or] conclusory” or “palpably incredible.” Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 14 75–76 (1977). 15 Here, Petitioner’s allegations are vague, difficult to decipher, and do not appear to 16 implicate a federal constitutional concern. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (“The writ of 17 habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of 18 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”). Moreover, to the extent 19 Petitioner remains subject to extradition based on his fugitive status, this Court generally 20 may not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. See Younger v. 21 22 23 2 California Penal Code section 1551.1 provides, in pertinent part: “The arrest of a person may . . . be lawfully made by any peace officer, without a warrant, upon reasonable information that the accused 24 stands charged in the courts of any other state with a crime punishable by death or imprisonment for a 25 term exceeding one year, or that the person has been convicted of a crime punishable in the state of conviction by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year and thereafter escaped from confinement or 26 violated the terms of his or her bail, probation or parole.”

27 3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus 28 | || Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971); Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1985) 2 ||(“When a state criminal prosecution has begun the Younger rule directly bars a 3 || declaratory judgment action” as well as a section 1983 action for damages “where such 4 ||an action would have a substantially disruptive effect upon ongoing state criminal 5 || proceedings.”). 6 In sum, principles of comity and federalism require a federal court to abstain from 7 || deciding pre-conviction habeas corpus challenges to state proceedings unless a petitioner 8 ||demonstrates that (1) he has exhausted available state judicial remedies, and (2) “special 9 || circumstances warrant federal intervention.” See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 10 || (9th Cir. 1980). Petitioner has demonstrated neither. 11 CONCLUSION 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DISMISSES the petition for writ of 13 || habeas corpus without prejudice and without leave to amend. The Court DECLINES to 14 || issue a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (state prisoner entitled to a 15 certificate of appealability only upon making a “substantial showing of the denial of a 16 constitutional right.”); see also Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000) 17 ||(citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)). The Clerk of Court is 18 instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || DATE: March 30, 2021 ‘ack Tl ie i hes HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28