Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JASON HAFLEY,
Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF ALASKA AT PALMER,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:21-cv-00217-RRB
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
Self-represented prisoner, Jason Hafley, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 	Mr. Hafley is a pretrial detainee at Mat-Su
Pretrial Facility with pending Alaska state criminal charges.2 	This Court takes
judicial notice of Mr. Hafley’s criminal case in the Alaska Superior Court at 3PA-
21-01115CR.3
Mr. Hafley alleges three grounds for his petition. 	First, Mr. Hafley alleges
that he waited approximately 25 hours from his arrest until his arraignment.4
1 Docket 1.
2 See Id.
3 Judicial notice is the “court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without
requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept
such a fact.” 	Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S.
Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 n.3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a proceeding in
another tribunal are appropriate for judicial notice.”) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201.
4 Docket 1 at 7.
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 1 of 6

3:21-cv-00217-RRB, Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer
Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Page 2 of 6
Second, 	he 	alleges 	he 	waited 	over 	20 	days 	to 	receive 	discovery 	after 	his
arraignment.5 	Lastly, he alleges that he has not been served with or seen the
warrant for his arrest.6 	For relief, Mr. Hafley requests “dismissal of all charges
based on failure of due process[.]”7
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides federal courts with general habeas corpus
jurisdiction.8 	A petitioner may properly challenge pretrial detention under 28
U.S.C. § 2241.9
A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.10 	“If it plainly appears
from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that
the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion. . . .”11
Upon screening, it plainly appears that Mr. Hafley is not entitled to relief, and his
petition must be dismissed.
5 Docket 1 at 7.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 8.
8 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999).
9 See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885–88 (9th Cir. 2004).
10 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings for the United States District
Courts. 	The same procedural rules for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and § 2255 govern 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241.
11 Id.
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 2 of 6

3:21-cv-00217-RRB, Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer
Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Page 3 of 6
DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being
detained or held in custody by the government.12 	The writ “is a vital ‘instrument
for the protection of individual liberty’ against government power.”13
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, this Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a
prisoner “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.”14 This habeas statute provides federal courts with general habeas corpus
jurisdiction.15
28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper avenue for a state prisoner who wishes to
challenge his state custody without a state judgment.16 Because § 2241 provides
broad habeas relief, other proper examples of § 2241 petitions include challenges
12 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 474 (2004).
13 Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015); quoting Boumediene v. Bush,
553 U.S. 723, 743 (2008).
14 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
15 See Magana-Pizano v. INS, 200 F.3d 603, 608 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1999).
16 Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 885–88 (9th Cir. 2004); quoting White v. Lambert,
370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (“By contrast, the general grant of habeas authority
in § 2241 is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to
a state court judgment-for example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting
extradition.”).
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 3 of 6

3:21-cv-00217-RRB, Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer
Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Page 4 of 6
to pretrial detention,17 parole decisions,18 sentencing credits,19 and immigration
decisions.20 	However, prisoners are limited in the relief sought under § 2241 to
the extent they may seek relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (for a state conviction) or
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (for a federal conviction).21
When examining § 2241 petitions from a pretrial detainee, a Court must
evaluate its jurisdiction. 	The Younger abstention doctrine provides that federal
courts may not generally exercise jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with
state 	judicial 	proceedings.22 	This 	extends 	to 	pretrial 	detainees 	raising
constitutional claims as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.23 	A federal
district court may not interfere with a state court criminal proceeding, unless
presented with “extraordinary circumstances”24 such as a “showing of bad faith,
17 McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003).
18 See Tyler v. United States, 929 F.2d 451, 453 n.5 (9th Cir. 1991).
19 United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984).
20 INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 314 (2001).
21 See Moore v. Reno, 185 F.3d 1054, 1055 (9th Cir. 1999) (per curiam); Greenawalt v.
Stewart, 105 F.3d 1287, 1287–88 (9th Cir. 1997) (per curiam).
22 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
23 Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012).
24 Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83–84 (9th Cir. 1980).
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 4 of 6

3:21-cv-00217-RRB, Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer
Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Page 5 of 6
harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call for equitable
relief.”25
A federal court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met:
(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates an
important state interest; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal
constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would
enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere
with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.”26 	If the Younger
doctrine applies, the court must dismiss claims seeking equitable relief and stay
claims seeking damages pending completion of the state court proceedings.27
Mr. Hafley faces eight counts of Possession of Child Pornography pursuant
to Alaska Stat. § 11.61.127, a Class C Felony. 	Mr. Hafley was arraigned on
August 5, 2021, and his state court proceeding is ongoing.28 The State of Alaska
has an important interest in enforcing its laws. 	Mr. Hafley has an opportunity to
raise and contest procedural and federal constitutional matters in the Alaska
25 Younger, 401 U.S. at 54.
26 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087,
1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
27 See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
28 State of Alaska v. Hafley, Case No. 3PA-21-01115CR, event entry dated August 5,
2021 (“Arraignment: Superior Court (In Custody).” 	For a complete docket view of the
state litigation in this matter, individuals may search Alaska state online case records at
https://records.courts.alaska.gov/).
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 5 of 6

3:21-cv-00217-RRB, Hafley v. State of Alaska at Palmer
Order Dismissing 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition
Page 6 of 6
Superior Court. 	Mr. Hafley has requested the dismissal of his state court case,
thereby if the federal court intervened it would, in practical effect, enjoin the state
matter.
Mr. Hafley’s case progresses before the Alaska Superior Court, where he
has the assistance of counsel. 	Mr. Hafley’s case does not show harassment, a
prosecution in bad faith, or a delay which results in irreparable injury. At this time,
there are no factors present for this Court to override the doctrine of abstention
and intervene in Mr. Hafley’s state proceeding.
Thus, 	the 	matter 	at 	present 	fulfills 	all 	the 	requirements 	for 	Younger
abstention and no extraordinary circumstances. 	Mr. Hafley has not presented
viable 	grounds 	for 	a 	habeas 	petition 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241. 	Therefore,
Mr. Hafley’s petition must be dismissed.
IT IS THERFORE ORDERED:
1. The Petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment.
3. A certificate of appealability shall not issue.
Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 12th day of November, 2021.
/s/ Ralph R. Beistline
RALPH R. BEISTLINE
Senior United States District Judge
Case 3:21-cv-00217-RRB Document 3 Filed 11/12/21 Page 6 of 6