United States District Court, D. Hawaii
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
AND DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS, IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION,
AND CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Derrick K. Watson United States District Judge.
the Court is pro se prisoner William Jackson Gay Barnes'
pleading entitled, “Petition(s) for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus and Writ of Mandamus.” ECF No. 1. Barnes
challenges his pretrial detention at the Oahu Community
Correctional Center (“OCCC”). Barnes is a
pretrial detainee awaiting trial in the Circuit Court of the
First Circuit (“circuit court”), State of Hawaii,
in consolidated cases: State v. Barnes, Cr. No.
15-1-000354 and State v. Barnes, Cr. No.
15-1-000267. See Hawaii State Judiciary Ecourt
Kokua, available at:
1PC151000354; 1PC151000267 (last visited Feb. 12, 2018).
following reasons, the Court DISMISSES the Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus for lack of jurisdiction, DENIES a
certificate of appealability, and DENIES the Petition for
Writ of Mandamus. Any pending motions, including Barnes'
application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, are also
broadly alleges that Respondents are holding him illegally at
OCCC and seeks a Writ of Mandamus to appear in federal court
to explain his claims. Barnes says that he was “locked
in” the Adventist Health Castle Medical Center between
December 26, 2017, and January 2, 2018, while he was being
treated for a sexual and physical assault. ECF No. 1, PageID
#2, 4. He says that his attorney, the Honolulu Police
Department, and Aloha Bail agent Scott all knew that he was
in the hospital when he failed to appear at a January 2, 2018
court date. He argues that his absence at the hearing should
therefore have been excused.
also complains that the conditions of his confinement at OCCC
are “cruel and unusual, intentionally negligent, and
deliberately indifferent under both the State of Hawaii and
the United States Constitutions.” ECF No. 1, PageID #2.
Barnes alleges that he is: (1) triple-celled and forced to
sleep on the floor; (2) given meals that contain less than
1/3 protein and 3200 calories per day, and are not maintained
at 140 degrees; (3) denied medical and psychiatric care for
his injuries and mental health issues; and (4) denied access
to the law library, his legal papers, and his mail which
impedes his access to the courts. Id., PageID #2-3.
his request for relief is not explicit, because he filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and says that he is being
illegally detained, it is clear that Barnes seeks release.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from
a person claiming to be “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an
application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award
the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show
cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears
from the application that the applicant or person detained is
not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
Barnes is a pretrial detainee and is not in custody
pursuant to a state court judgment, the Court construes his
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus as brought pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. See Hoyle v. Ada Cty., 501 F.3d
1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding § 2241 is the
appropriate vehicle for pretrial detainee's challenge to
detention); Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 882-83,
886-88 (9th Cir. 2004) (allowing pretrial detainee
challenging retrial to proceed under § 2241). Section
2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof,
the district courts and any circuit judge” to grant
writs of habeas corpus “within their respective
jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).
of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which applies to
habeas petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition if
“it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
traditional principles of comity and federalism, federal
courts may not interfere with pending state criminal
proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); Middlesex Cty.
Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S.
423, 431 (1982). Younger abstention is required
when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing, (2) the
state proceedings implicate important state interests, (3)
the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal
constitutional issues in the state proceeding, and (4) the
federal court action would enjoin or have the practical