Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01633/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01633-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT TAMPLIN, JR.,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM MUNIZ,

Respondent.

No. 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

TO DENY MOTION FOR ORDER 

DISMISSING STATE COURT ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE, OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, SCHEDULE AN 

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

[Docs. 84, 85]

[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION 

DEADLINE]

Petitioner filed a habeas petition on October 4, 2012, challenging his 2007 conviction in 

Fresno County Superior Court of possession of a firearm by a felon. On October 5, 2018, the 

Court issued an order granting the petition with instructions that Petitioner be released from 

custody within ninety days unless he was arraigned and a new trial date set. 

Pending before the Court are Petitioner’s two motions to dismiss the state court action, 

filed on December 23 and 27, 2019, respectively. (Docs. 84, 85.) Petitioner contends that the 

state court has failed to abide by the Court’s instructions and requests dismissal of all charges, or 

in the alternative, that the Court schedule an evidentiary hearing on his complaints. The Court 

finds that the state court has complied with the Court’s order of October 5, 2018. As to 

Petitioner’s complaints concerning violations of his rights in the state court hearing, the Court 

Case 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO Document 86 Filed 01/02/20 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

finds that it must abstain from interfering in ongoing state court proceedings, insofar as Petitioner 

has avenues of relief available to him in the state courts.

DISCUSSION

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 

special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 

required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 

involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 

raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 

U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 

The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 

appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 

permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 

decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 

The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 

from review of a claim. To be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 

exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 

comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 

exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 

opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 

U.S. 270, 276 (1971).

As previously stated, the District Court issued the order granting the petition on October 

5, 2018. (Doc. 82.) The Court’s order instructed Respondent to release Petitioner unless he was 

arraigned and a new trial date was set within ninety days. Petitioner has submitted a copy of a 

minute order from the Fresno County Superior Court reflecting that Petitioner was re-arraigned 

on the charges on December 17, 2018, and a new trial date was set for January 31, 2019. (Doc. 

85 at 6-7.) Thus, the Court’s order was satisfied. 

Case 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO Document 86 Filed 01/02/20 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Petitioner contends that he was not present during the re-arraignment hearing despite the 

fact that the minute order reflects that he was present. This issue and the question whether 

Petitioner’s rights were violated are matters that must first be addressed by the state courts. State 

court proceedings are ongoing, and California has an important interest in passing upon and 

correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. 

Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). In addition, the 

Fresno County Superior Court, the California Court of Appeals, and the California Supreme 

Court are adequate forums for Petitioner to seek relief for his claims prior to seeking relief in the 

Federal Court. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the Court recommends Petitioner’s 

motion be denied and the Court abstain from interfering in state proceedings. 

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s motions 

be DENIED.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections 

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendation.” Any reply to objections may be filed within ten (10) days of the date of 

service of objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01633-AWI-SKO Document 86 Filed 01/02/20 Page 3 of 3