Headen
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-08125
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Headen v. San Mateo County Superior Court, Judge Gilliam dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice, granted fee-waiver requests, and denied appeal certification.
Brian C. Headen’s federal challenge to his San Mateo County conviction was dismissed without prejudice. The order left the state criminal proceedings ongoing and allowed refiling after the conviction became final and state remedies were exhausted.
What happened
Brian C. Headen, representing himself, asked a federal court to review his San Mateo County conviction for criminal threats, stalking, and disobeying a peace officer. He had been convicted but not yet sentenced.
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning Headen may refile later. It said the state criminal proceedings were still ongoing, so federal intervention was barred, and Headen had not yet presented his claims through the available state-court process.
The court granted Headen’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees, denied a certificate of appealability, entered judgment for the respondent, and closed the case. Judge Arno S. GILLIAM, JR. issued the order.
The detailed version
- Headen · No. 4:21-cv-08125
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
Brian C. Headen filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 asking the federal court to review a conviction from San Mateo County Superior Court. He represented himself. According to his amended petition, a San Mateo County jury convicted him of making criminal threats under California Penal Code § 422, stalking under California Penal Code § 646.9(a), and disobeying a peace officer under California Vehicle Code § 2800. He had not yet been sentenced.
Reasons for dismissal
The court dismissed the petition without prejudice because the conviction was not yet final and Headen had not exhausted his state-court remedies. The court explained that the state proceedings remained ongoing because Headen had not been sentenced and the deadlines for challenging the conviction and sentence had not expired.
The court applied the Younger abstention doctrine, which generally prevents federal courts from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings except in extraordinary circumstances. The court found that the requirements for abstention were met: state judicial proceedings were pending, the state had an important interest in administering its criminal justice system, Headen could raise his federal constitutional claims in state court, and federal action would interfere with the state proceedings.
The court also held that a state prisoner seeking federal review must first present each claim to the highest available state court, either through a direct appeal or other state proceedings. Because Headen’s state proceedings were ongoing and he had not exhausted his state remedies, the court dismissed the action without prejudice to refiling after his conviction became final and he exhausted those remedies.
Disposition
The court granted Headen’s requests to proceed without paying filing fees, dismissed the action without prejudice, and denied a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability is required for an appeal in this type of federal habeas case, and the court found that Headen had not made the required showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court entered judgment for San Mateo County Superior Court against Headen, terminated the pending motions as moot, and closed the case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.