United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Justin Chanse Rider filed a pro se petition for writ
of habeas corpus by a pretrial detainee pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 (ECF No. 6). Before the court is respondents'
amended motion to dismiss the petition (ECF No. 25). Rider
opposed the motion, and respondents replied (ECF Nos. 29,
30). Rider filed motions to supplement his petition (ECF Nos.
31, 32). Though the court notes that it is not entirely clear
what these supplements add to the petition, the motions are
granted. The supplements (ECF Nos. 31-1, 32-1) will be
considered part of Rider's petition.
Background and Procedural History
is a pretrial detainee who was arrested in Texas in February
2015 (ECF No. 6, pp. 7-9). He was returned to Nevada in March
2015, and he has been in the custody of the Esmeralda County
Sheriff since that time. Id. He faces felony charges
of sexually abusing his daughter. Rider was appointed
counsel, but ultimately litigated his right to represent
himself and has subsequently proceeded in the Fifth Judicial
District pro se with court-appointed standby counsel. He
filed a state pretrial habeas corpus petition, which was
denied (see Nevada Supreme Court No.
74024). The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed his
appeal for lack of jurisdiction because no appeal lies from
an order denying a pretrial habeas petition. Id.
first jury trial in April 2018 ended in a jury hung 11 to 1
in favor of conviction, and the State elected to re-try Rider
(ECF No. 31-1; ECF No. 25, p. 4). Respondents inform the
court that Rider was recently tried in Fifth Judicial
District Court, and the trial ended in a mistrial and hung
jury (see ECF No. 21, p. 2). A new trial date was
set for September 2018. Apparently, Rider sought a
continuance while he attempted to subpoena several
out-of-state witnesses, and the trial was moved to December
2018 (see ECF No. 31-1, p. 2; ECF No. 28, p. 2). The
court then granted Rider's request for a continuance as
he continued to attempt to subpoena the Texas witnesses and
moved the trial date to February 2019. The record reflects
nothing further. Rider asks this court to direct the state
court to release him from custody pending trial.
Legal Standards & Analysis
general rule, even when the claims in a petition have been
fully exhausted in the state courts, a federal court will not
entertain a habeas petition seeking intervention in a pending
state criminal proceeding, absent special circumstances.
See, e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins,
716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983); Carden v. State of
Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980);
Davidson v. Klinger, 411 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1969).
rule of restraint ultimately is grounded in principles of
comity that flow from the abstention doctrine of Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under the Younger
abstention doctrine, federal courts may not interfere with
pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary
circumstances. There are three exceptions to the Younger
abstention doctrine: (1) there is evidence of state
proceedings motivated by bad faith; (2) irreparable injury
would occur; or (3) there is no adequate alternative state
forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.
Id. at 45-50.
the record reflects that Rider was initially appointed
counsel, was dissatisfied with a series of appointed
attorneys, and ultimately litigated his right to represent
himself (exhibit 6, pp. 17-21). Since that time, Rider has
represented himself and has had court-appointed standby
counsel. As stated, Rider's first jury trial resulted in
a hung jury and mistrial. Since then, Rider has filed two
federal 1983 civil rights actions regarding his conditions of
confinement in this court. Respondents also state that Rider
has filed two civil rights actions in state district court
(see ECF No. 25, p. 4, n.1).
record reflects that the state district court has carefully
considered Rider's pretrial detainee habeas claim. At an
August 2017 hearing on the petition, the court first noted
that bail was set in Rider's case.
I have set bail in this case. You have asked me to reconsider
it. I did.
And now you filed a writ asking for the exact same thing. So,
I don't care what you call it. The bottom line is, I have
ruled on the issue. You have offered nothing new in the scope
of that that tells me, you have. I have set bail that is
reasonable in light of the charges that you are facing.
And I believe the bail is set, if I recall correctly, at
$100, 000, and you are looking at nine separate offenses,
which are, involve, quite frankly, life in prison without the
possibility of parole. So, I think the bail amount is
reasonable. I have set bail. The fact that you are ...