Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00300/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00300-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

18cv300-CAB-JMA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELBERT LEE VAUGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT KERNAN,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv300-CAB-JMA

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT 

TO PULLMAN ABSTENTION

On August 1, 2018, this Court issued an Order: (1) Granting Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Monetary Damages Only) and (2) to Show Cause Why the Case 

for Injunctive Relief Should Not be Stayed or Dismissed Under Younger/Pullman 

Abstention (“OSC”). [Doc. No. 11.] On August 24, 2018, Defendant filed a response to 

the OSC. [Doc. No. 12.] Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC, nor has he filed a 

reply to Defendant’s response. For the reasons set forth below, the case is DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that under Proposition 57, inmates who were not 

convicted of a violent felony as a primary offense—i.e. crimes listed under California 

Case 3:18-cv-00300-CAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 09/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

18cv300-CAB-JMA

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

Penal Code §667.5—are entitled to early parole consideration after completing the full 

term of their primary offense. [Doc. No. 1 at 3 - 7.] He alleges that CDCR regulations 

define a violent felony consistently with this penal code section. Id. But CDCR 

regulations, which were certified by Secretary Kernan, allegedly go further and 

improperly exclude from early parole consideration inmates who are serving life 

sentences for non-violent felonies. Id. at 3-6.

Plaintiff alleges that he is serving a 30-year-to-life sentence under California’s 

three strike sentencing guidelines, but that his primary offense—burglary—was a nonviolent offense, and he has served his full term. Id. at 4. Plaintiff claims that he is eligible 

for an early parole hearing under Proposition 57, but is denied this hearing because of 

CDCR’s regulations. Id. at 4-7. 

Plaintiff claims that, by implementing the CDCR regulations that exclude inmates 

like Plaintiff from early parole consideration, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s 

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks 

monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 10.

On June 4, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim for monetary 

damages. [Doc. No. 7.] In the motion to dismiss, Defendant states that Plaintiff has his 

“own yet-undecided habeas petition on this issue [which] is currently before the 

California Court of Appeal,” entitled “In re Elbert Lee Vaught, Court of Appeal of the 

State of California, Case No. G054657.” [Doc. No. 7-1 at 8, n. 2.] Defendant further 

states that “[o]nce [the state habeas is] decided, Defendant will raise res judicata issues in 

this case.” Id.

On August 1, 2018, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, leaving only 

a claim for injunctive relief. In addition, given that there appears to be an on-going state 

court proceeding regarding the same issue involved in this case, and involving a matter of 

Case 3:18-cv-00300-CAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 09/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

18cv300-CAB-JMA

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

untested state law, the Court issued an OSC regarding why this case should not be stayed 

or dismissed under Younger1and/or Pullman2abstention. 

In response to the OSC, Defendant agreed that the case should be dismissed or 

stayed under the Pullman abstention doctrine, and requested judicial notice pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) of the following:

1. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, 

Division Three, Case No. G054657, In re Elbert Lee Vaught, petition [Doc. No. 

12-1 at 3-13] and court docket [Doc. No. 12-1 at 14-19];

2. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, 

Division Seven, Case No. B289276, In re Freddie Hughey, petition [Doc. No. 

12-1 at 20-50] and court docket [Doc. No. 12-1 at 51-53].

Given that these are official court records, Defendant’s request for judicial notice 

[Doc. No. 12-1] is GRANTED.

In Plaintiff’s state court petition, he raises the same issue that he raises in this case 

regarding the CDCR regulations and their impact on three-strikes inmates. [See Doc. No. 

12-1 at 10.] In addition, the docket shows that Plaintiff is represented by counsel in his 

state court petition, the case is fully briefed, and there has been oral argument. [Doc. No. 

12-1 at 15-19.] Finally, the state court petition filed by Freddie Hughey also addresses 

the same issue addressed here, and that matter is also ongoing. [See Doc. No. 12-1 at 25-

27, 52-53.]

DISCUSSION

Federal courts may abstain where federal constitutional issues are raised in 

connection with state statutes whose interpretation is unsettled. Railroad Comm’n of 

Texas v. Pullman Co. (“Pullman”), 312 U.S. 496, 500 (1941). The Pullman abstention 

 

1 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40–41, 91 S.Ct. 746 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).

2 Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co. (“Pullman”), 312 U.S. 496, 500 (1941).

Case 3:18-cv-00300-CAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 09/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

18cv300-CAB-JMA

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

doctrine allows a federal court to postpone the exercise of federal jurisdiction when “a 

federal constitutional issue ... might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a 

state court determination of pertinent state law.” C–Y Dev. Co. v. City of Redlands, 703 

F.2d 375, 377 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 

U.S. 185, 189 (1959)); see also Pearl Investment Co. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco, 

774 F.2d 1460, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (under the Pullman abstention doctrine, courts 

should abstain in cases presenting a federal constitutional question if constitutional 

adjudication could be avoided or the constitutional question narrowed by a state court 

ruling on an uncertain question of state law). In the Ninth Circuit, three criteria must be 

met before Pullman abstention is appropriate: (1) The complaint touches a sensitive area 

of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to 

its adjudication is open. (2) Such constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a 

definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy. (3) The possibly 

determinative issue of state law is doubtful. Smelt v. Cty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673, 679 

(9th Cir. 2006). 

Here, it is clear that in at least two ongoing state appellate court proceedings, 

including Plaintiff’s, the state court is addressing the same issue presented in this case. 

Moreover, all three criteria for Pullman abstention are met. Smelt, 447 F.3d at 679. The

social policy concerning prison sentencing, especially relating to three-strike inmates, is a 

sensitive area that has traditionally been regulated through state law. In addition, 

constitutional adjudication would be avoided if the state court rules in Plaintiff’s favor 

and CDCR amends its regulations. Finally, it is impossible to predict which way the 

court will rule. Thus, Pullman abstention is appropriate.

Given that the only relief sought in this case is equitable, this court has discretion 

to either stay the action or decline jurisdiction altogether by dismissing the action. 

Quackenbush v. Allstate, Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 717-722 (1996). This Court elects in its 

discretion to DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/ / / / / 

Case 3:18-cv-00300-CAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 09/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

18cv300-CAB-JMA

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00300-CAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 09/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5