• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 26 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 1 of 25
12345678
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
101112
RICHARD I. FINE,
)
No. CV 09-1914-JFW(CW)
)
13
Petitioner,
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
)
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE14
v.
))
15
SHERIFF LEROY D. BACA, et al.,)
)
16
Respondents.
)
17
)
18This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable John19F. Walter, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636
20and General Order 194 of the United States District Court for the
21Central District of California. The petition for habeas corpus relief
22should be denied and this action dismissed with prejudice.
23
I.
PRESENT PROCEEDINGS
24
The pro se petitioner, Richard I. Fine, is in the custody of the25Sheriff of Los Angeles County, at a Los Angeles County jail facility,
26under a judgment and order of contempt and a remand order (imposing
27coercive civil contempt under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1219(a)) both28issued on March 4, 2009, by Hon. David P. Yaffe, Judge of the Superior
1
 
Case 2:09-cv-01914-JFW-CW Document 26 Filed 06/12/2009 Page 2 of 25
1Court, in California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, Case No.
2
BS109420.
1
Petitioner challenged the contempt proceeding and sought3state court remedies in a habeas petition to the California Supreme
4Court (No. S170933), which was summarily denied on March 5, 2009.
5[Habeas Petition at Pet. Ex. E, summary denial listed on docket, No.
6
S170933, on California Appellate Courts website.]
2
 
7The present Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in
8State Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2254) was filed in this court on March 19,
92009 (as docket no. 1). On April 21, 2009, Respondent Sheriff Baca10filed a motion to dismiss (docket no. 12), simply arguing that the11Sheriff, although Petitioner’s actual custodian, has acted under order12of the superior court, and is not the real party in interest. An
13answer, addressing the merits of Petitioner’s claims, was filed on May
141, 2009 (docket no. 15), on behalf of Judge Yaffe and the Superior
15Court, Los Angeles County, as Respondents and Real Parties in
16Interest. Petitioner has filed two responses to the answer (docket17no. 22, filed May 8, 2009, and docket no. 24, filed May 14, 2009).
18A challenge to the legality of custody pursuant to a civil19contempt order by a state court appears to be properly raised in
20
21
1
 
The “Remand Order” and the Judgment and Order ofContempt re
Richard I. Fine (“Judgment & Order”) are both attached as Exhibit
22(“Ex.”) A to the Declaration of Kevin McCormick in Support of Response ofthe Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (“McCormick
23Decl.”), docket no. 16, filed May 1, 2009; the Judgment & Order is
24also attached as Ex. C. to the present Petition (“Pet.”).
2Because Petitioner’s state habeas actions were filed before
25March 4, 2009, in an attempt to stay judgment, rather than afterwardsin an attempt to reverse it, it is not clear whether Petitioner has26properly exhausted state court remedies on his present claims forfederal habeas corpus relief. However, because Respondents have not27raised the exhaustion issue, substantial time has already elapsed,Petitioner has sought expeditious resolution, and Petitioner’s claims28all fail, this court should decide the case on its merits.
 
2
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...