Brooks v. Houser

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JASON RAY BROOKS,
Petitioner,
v.
EARL HOUSER,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On May 2, 2022, Petitioner Jason Ray Brooks, a self-represented prisoner,
filed a Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.1 Mr. Brooks
seeks federal habeas relief based on a challenge to the State of Alaska’s criminal
jurisdiction in his pending state criminal proceeding.2 According to Mr. Brooks, the
criminal acts alleged in the State’s indictment occurred on Joint Base Elmendorf
Richardson (JBER). Mr. Brooks asserts that under Article I, section 8, clause 17
of the U.S. Constitution, JBER is a federal enclave over which the State of Alaska
has no criminal jurisdiction.3 He requests that the Court “[o]rder the State of Alaska
to immediately release [him] from incarceration and dismiss the indictment and
charges” in his pending case.4
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 1 at 2.
3 Docket 1 at 6–7.
4 Docket 1 at 8.
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 1 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 2 of 7
The Court takes judicial notice of Mr. Brooks’s pending criminal case, State
of Alaska v. Jason R. Brooks, Case No. 3AN-20-04792CR.5
SCREENING REQUIREMENT
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides federal courts with general habeas corpus
jurisdiction.6 A court must “promptly examine” a habeas petition.7 “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.”8
DISCUSSION
A writ of habeas corpus allows an individual to test the legality of being
detained or held in custody by the government.9 The writ is “a vital ‘instrument for
the protection of individual liberty’ against government power.”10 Under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241, this Court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner “in custody in
5 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.”
Judicial Notice, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest
Serv., 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)).
6 Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004).
7 Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Courts.
8 Id.
9 Rasul, 542 U.S. at 473–74.
10 Gage v. Chappell, 793 F.3d 1159, 1167 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Boumediene v. Bush, 553
U.S. 723, 743 (2008)).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 2 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 3 of 7
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”11 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241 is the proper avenue for a state prisoner who seeks to challenge his state
custody when there is no state judgment, such as here, where it appears Mr. Smith
is challenging his pretrial detention.12
Upon screening, it plainly appears that Mr. Brooks is not entitled to habeas
relief pursuant to § 2241 because the doctrine of Younger abstention compels the
Court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over his current petition. Younger
abstention, first announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris,13
requires that “[w]hen there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal
courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution.”14 Younger abstention
applies when the following four requirements are met:
(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding
implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate
opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges;
and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect
of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.15
11 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
12 See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (“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.”) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004)).
13 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
14 Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013).
15 Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898,
901–02 (9th Cir. 2019)).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 3 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 4 of 7
If a case satisfies these four factors, a federal court must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over it unless there is “a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some
other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.”16
The Ninth Circuit has recognized an “irreparable harm” exception to Younger
abstention that applies “under extraordinary circumstances where the danger of
irreparable loss is both great and immediate.”17 Under the irreparable harm
exception, Younger abstention
does not “require[] a district court to abstain from hearing a petition for
a writ of habeas corpus challenging the conditions of pretrial detention
in state court” where (1) the procedure challenged in the petition is
distinct from the underlying criminal prosecution and the challenge
would not interfere with the prosecution, or (2) full vindication of the
petitioner’s pretrial rights requires intervention before trial.18
The Ninth Circuit has applied this exception to a pretrial detainee’s “colorable claim
that a state prosecution [would] violate the Double Jeopardy Clause,”19 to “a
challenge to pretrial detention on the basis of a stale and scientifically invalid
probable cause determination,”20 to “a pretrial detainee’s claim that he had been
incarcerated for over six months without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing,”21
16 Id. (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018)).
17 Id. (quoting World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082
(9th Cir. 1987)).
18 Page, 932 F.3d at 903 (alteration in original) (quoting Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 764).
19 Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133–34 (quoting Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1131 n.5 (9th Cir.
2018)).
20 Id. at 1134 (citing Page, 932 F.3d at 904).
21 Id. (citing Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 766–67).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 4 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 5 of 7
and to a pretrial detainee’s challenge of “forcible administration of antipsychotic
medications.”22 But the Ninth Circuit has not applied this exception to pre-
conviction habeas petitions that “seek[] to vindicate a petitioner’s speedy trial
affirmative defense.”23 Nor, as far as the Court’s research has discovered, has the
Ninth Circuit ever applied the exception to a pretrial habeas petition challenging a
state court’s criminal jurisdiction.
Mr. Brooks’s petition satisfies the four Younger abstention requirements.
First, Mr. Brooks’s pending criminal case is an ongoing state proceeding. Second,
the Court takes judicial notice of the fact that in his pending case, Mr. Brooks has
been charged with two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the First Degree, an
unclassified felony, and two counts of Sexual Abuse of a Minor in the Second
Degree, a Class B felony.24 The State of Alaska has an important interest in
prosecuting felony sex abuse cases.25 Third, Mr. Brooks has an adequate
opportunity to raise his federal jurisdictional challenge in the pending state case.
Mr. Brooks has identified no procedural bars that might prevent him from raising
his arguments in the state proceeding, such as by having his counsel file a motion
22 Id. at 1134–36.
23 Id. at 1134 (citing Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2012); Carden v. Montana, 626
F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980)).
24 State v. Brooks, Case No. 3AN-20-04792CR, Party Charge Information.
25 Cf. Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (“[T]he state has an important interest in prosecuting a murder
case . . . .”).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 5 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 6 of 7
or raise the issue at a pretrial hearing.26 Fourth, Mr. Brooks’s petition seeks
“dismiss[al of] the indictment and charges” in the ongoing proceedings.27 If
granted, such relief would “ha[ve] the practical effect of enjoining” the state’s
proceedings.28 Thus, Mr. Brooks’s petition meets the four requirements for
Younger abstention.
Mr. Brooks’s petition presents no other facts that might justify an exception
to Younger abstention. Therefore, the Court must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over his petition.
CONCLUSION
In summary, Mr. Brooks’s petition satisfies the requirements for applying
Younger abstention. Because Mr. Brooks has not alleged or established bad faith,
harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances that might justify an exception
to abstention, the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over his current
petition. Mr. Brooks has therefore not presented viable grounds for a habeas
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and his petition must be dismissed.
26 See Commc’ns Telesystems Int’l v. Cal. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 196 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.
1999) (explaining that satisfying the “adequate opportunity” prong of Younger “requires only the
absence of ‘procedural bars’ to raising a federal claim in the state proceedings”). The Court
takes judicial notice of the fact that an attorney from the Alaska Public Defender Agency filed an
entry of appearance on Mr. Brooks’s behalf in his pending state case in October 2020. State v.
Brooks, Case No. 3AN-20-04792CR, Docket Information.
27 Docket 1 at 8.
28 Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (quoting Page, 932 F.3d at 902).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 6 of 7

Case No. 3:22-cv-00114-SLG, Brooks v. Houser
Order of Dismissal
Page 7 of 7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. The Petition at Docket 1 is DISMISSED.
2. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a Final Judgment in this case.
4. A Certificate of Appealability shall not issue.29
DATED this 21st day of June, 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
29 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(d), 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)
(certificate of appealability may be granted only if applicant made a “substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right,” i.e., a showing that “reasonable jurists could debate
whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues
presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further” (internal quotations
and citations omitted)).
Case 3:22-cv-00114-SLG Document 5 Filed 06/21/22 Page 7 of 7