Case 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAMRAN ABBAS MOHAMMED, Case No. 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD

12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE:

DISMISSAL OF HABEAS

13 v.

PETITION

14 PEOPLE OF STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

15 Respondent. 16

17 On June 29, 2022, Petitioner Camran Abbas Mohammed, a state 18 pretrial detainee, filed a pro se Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 The Court 19 issues this Order to Show Cause because the face of the Petition suggests that 20 Petitioner has failed to exhaust his claims at the state level. 21

22

23

24 25 26 1 Although Petitioner filed his petition on a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 state habeas petition form, the Court analyzes it under § 2241, which is the proper vehicle for 27 state pretrial detainees seeking federal habeas relief. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). 28 Case 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:27

1 I. Procedural History2 2 Petitioner is charged in Orange County Superior Court with kidnapping 3 and attempted rape. He has pleaded not guilty to both crimes and is awaiting 4 trial. His appointed counsel declared doubt about his competency, and the 5 trial court ordered that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Thereafter, he 6 was committed to Patton State Hospital. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 2, 5.] In late 7 August, 2022, he was transferred to the Theo Lacy Jail in Orange, California. 8 [Dkt No. 5.] 9 Petitioner filed two habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal, 10 which denied them both on June 30, 2022.3 [See id. at 6-7, 10-11.] He has not 11 filed any habeas petitions in the California Supreme Court. See Cal. App. Cts. 12 Case Info., http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for “Mohammed” 13 with “Camran” in supreme court) (last visited Sept. 6, 2022). 14 On July 29, 2022, he filed the instant Petition.4

II. Discussion

15 A. Duty to Screen 16 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 17 District Courts requires courts to examine the petition before ordering the 18 respondent to file an answer or any other pleading. The petition must be 19 summarily dismissed “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and 20 any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 21 court.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 22 Rule 4; see Toft v. D’Agostini, No. 2:22-cv-0016 DB P, 2022 WL 1433525, at *1 23

24 2 For the most part, the Court derives the procedural history from Petitioner’s 25 allegations in his Petition and the exhibits thereto.

26 3 Petitioner also filed a habeas petition in the superior court, which was denied in December 2021. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 7, 8-9.] 27

28 4 Petitioner initially filed the Petition in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which transferred it to this Court. [See Dkt. No. 4.]

2 Case 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:28

1 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2022) (explaining that Rule 4 framework applies in 2 screening habeas petition brought under § 2241). 3 B. Failure to Exhaust 4 Petitioners in state custody challenging either the fact or length of their 5 confinement in federal court must first exhaust state judicial remedies by 6 presenting the highest state court with a fair opportunity to rule on the 7 merits of their claims. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 510 (1982). The 8 exhaustion doctrine is based on comity to the state court and gives the state 9 court the initial opportunity to correct the state’s alleged constitutional 10 deprivations. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). 11 Although there is no exhaustion requirement for a pretrial detainee 12 petition brought under § 2241, principles of federalism and comity require 13 that this court abstain and not entertain a pretrial habeas challenge unless the petitioner has exhausted his available state-judicial remedies and “special 14 circumstances” warrant federal intervention. Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 15 82, 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir. 1980); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971) 16 (under principles of comity and federalism, federal court should not interfere 17 with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory 18 relief absent extraordinary circumstances). The exception for “special 19 circumstances” is limited to “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 20 undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid 21 conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 22 irreparable injury can be shown.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971); 23 see Carden, 626 F.2d at 84. 24 Here, Petitioner states that he is in pretrial custody against his will due 25 to false allegations concerning his competency and that his counsel provided 26 ineffective assistance by declaring doubt as to his competency and refusing to 27 provide him pretrial discovery. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 3, 5.] Although Petitioner 28 filed habeas petitions in the superior court and court of appeal that evidently

3 Case 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD Document 6 Filed 09/14/22 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:29

1 challenged his pretrial custody [see id. at 6-11],5 he has not filed a habeas 2 petition in the state supreme court. See Cal. App. Cts. Case Info., 3 http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ (search for “Mohammed” with “Camran” 4 in supreme court) (last visited Sept. 6, 2022). Nor has he alleged any special 5 circumstances that would relieve him of his obligation to exhaust his claims. 6 Accordingly, it appears that the Petition should be dismissed for failure to 7 exhaust.6 8 III. Conclusion 9 Petitioner is ordered show cause no later than October 17, 2022, as 10 to why the Petition should not be dismissed without prejudice as 11 unexhausted. If Petitioner alleges that he has exhausted the Petition’s 12 claims, he must identify the case number of the habeas petition he filed in the 13 state supreme court and provide copies of the petition and the state supreme court’s denial of the petition. Petitioner is admonished that if he does not file 14 a response to this Order within the time allowed, the Court will recommend 15

16 17 18 19 20

21 5 Petitioner did not submit any of the state-court habeas petitions that he 22 filed. Instead, he submitted only the state-court denials of those petitions. The denials do not identify the claims that he raised in the petitions. 23 6 Petitioner also seeks damages, including $250,000.00 for every 15 minutes 24 he has spent or will spend in pretrial custody. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 6.] A § 2241 25 petition is not, however, “the proper vehicle for obtaining monetary damages.” Christian v. Norwood, 376 F. App’x 725, 726 (9th Cir. 2010); see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 26 411 U.S. 475, 494, (1973); see also Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 331-32 (9th Cir.1991) (challenge to execution of sentence is maintainable only as § 2241 petition, 27 whereas damages claim for civil rights violations should be construed as action 28 under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). Thus, any request for damages may not be maintained in this action.

4 Case 8:22-cv-01514-PA-PD Document6 Filed 09/14/22 Page5of5 Page ID#:30

1 || that this action be dismissed for failure to exhaust state-court remedies and 2 || for failure to prosecute. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: September 14, 2022 AP abuuay Lonahoe_

PATRICIA DONAHUE

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28