Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00453/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00453-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS KENNETH CASE NO. CV F 07-0453 LJO TAG

PEYTON,

 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR

Plaintiff, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

vs. (Docs. 28, 29.)

JEFFREY BURDICK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

INTRODUCTION

In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, incarcerated plaintiff Aurelius Augustinus Kenneth Peyton

(“plaintiff”) seeks injunctive relief to “withdraw” from plaintiff’s ongoing state criminal action

substantial evidence compiled by defendant Bakersfield police detective Jeffrey Burdick (“Detective

Burdick”). For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff proceeds on his first amended complaint to allege that in September 2006, Detective

Burdick investigated “an indecent exposure incident” which culminated in plaintiff’s arrest and

incarceration given that plaintiff was on parole. The first amended complaint takes issue with Detective

Burdick’s compilation of evidence and alleges that Detective Burdick falsified evidence and secured

perjured testimony. The first amended complaint also names the Bakersfield Police Department as a

defendant.

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 07/20/07 Page 1 of 5
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

On July 19, 2007, plaintiff filed papers for injunctive relief to “withdraw” from the ongoing state

criminal action against plaintiff what appears to be nearly all evidence compiled by Detective Burdick

leading to indecent exposure charges against plaintiff and including a photographic lineup and

statements. 

DISCUSSION

Younger Abstention

The abstention doctrine under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971), precludes

plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief. Younger abstention is proper where (1) there are ongoing state

judicial proceedings, (2) that implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity

in the state proceedings to raise federal questions. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar

Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 2521 (1982); Confederated Salish v. Simonich, 29 F.3d 1398,

1405 (9 Cir. 1994). The “policy objective behind Younger abstention is to avoid unnecessary conflict th

between state and federal governments.” United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 707 (9 Cir. 2001). th

Younger permits “state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts,” particularly

where the party to the federal case may fully litigate his claim before the state court. Hicks v. Miranda,

422 U.S. 332, 349, 95 S.Ct. 2281 (1975) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 43, 91 S.Ct. 746). Younger

“contemplates the outright dismissal of the federal suit, and the presentation of all claims, both state and

federal, to the state courts.” Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577, 93 S.Ct. 1689 (1973); Beltran v.

State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9 Cir. 1988). th

The Younger abstention doctrine originated when a criminal defendant sought a federal court

injunction under section 1983 against a pending state court prosecution. Younger, 401 U.S. at 41, 91

S.Ct. 746. “Younger generally directs federal courts to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory

relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings.” Martinez v. Newport Beach City,

125 F.3d 777, 781 (9 Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds, Green, 255 F.3d 1086. th

Plaintiff’s requested injunctive relief would interfere with plaintiff’s ongoing criminal

proceedings. Younger directs this Court to abstain from doing so. Plaintiff’s state criminal proceedings

provide plaintiff an adequate opportunity to address issues raised in his papers seeking injunctive relief.

This Court is not in a position to interject into ongoing state court proceedings.

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 07/20/07 Page 2 of 5
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

Exhaustion

Moreover, federal courts will not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings unless the

petitioner has exhausted all state court remedies with respect to the claim raised. See Mannes v.

Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1311-1312 (9 Cir. 1992). Federal courts require exhaustion out of comity th

to the state court, and it is designed to give state courts the initial opportunity to correct alleged

constitutional deprivations. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1203 (1982); Buffalo v.

Sunn, 854 F.2d 1158, 1163 (9th Cir. 1988). Plaintiff complains of deprivation of rights prior to his trial

in his ongoing criminal proceedings. He has an opportunity to seek relief in his ongoing criminal

proceedings, by trial on the merits and subsequent application to state appellate courts.

After completion of state court proceedings, plaintiff may challenge the legality of custody by

his sole federal remedy of a writ of habeas corpus. Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 125 S.Ct. 1242,

1245-1248 (2005); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973); Young v. Kenny, 907 F.2d 874 (9th Cir.

1990), cert. denied, 11 S.Ct. 1090 (1991). Moreover, when seeking relief for an allegedly

unconstitutional imprisonment, “a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been

reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized

to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas

corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1994). “A claim . . . bearing that

relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983.”

Heck, 512 U.S. at 488.

Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate exhaustion of underlying state court remedies. Plaintiff’s

requested injunctive relief is an end run around the state courts and writ of habeas corpus procedures.

This Court will not reward plaintiff for his transparent attempt to drag a federal court into ongoing state

court proceedings.

Injunction Merits

As to the merits, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to injunctive relief. The purpose

of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo if the balance of equities so heavily favors the

moving party that justice requires the court to intervene to secure the positions until the merits of the

action are ultimately determined. University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981). A

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 07/20/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

preliminary injunction is available to a plaintiff who “demonstrates either (1) a combination of probable

success and the possibility of irreparable harm, or (2) that serious questions are raised and the balance

of hardship tips in its favor.” Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F. 2d 935, 937 (9th Cir.

1987). Under either approach the plaintiff “must demonstrate a significant threat of irreparable injury.”

Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at 937. Also, an injunction should not issue if the plaintiff “shows no chance of

success on the merits.” Arcamuzi, 819 F.2d at 937. At a bare minimum, the plaintiff “must demonstrate

a fair chance of success of the merits, or questions serious enough to require litigation.” Arcamuzi, 819

F.2d at 937.

When a government agency is involved, it must “be granted ‘the widest latitude in the dispatch

of its own internal affairs,’” Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118, 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Rizzo v.

Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 378-79, 96 S.Ct. 598, 608 (1976)), and “[w]hen a state agency is involved, these

considerations are, if anything, strengthened because of federalism concerns,” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128.

“[A]ny injunctive relief awarded must avoid unnecessarydisruption to the state agency’s ‘normal course

of proceeding.’” Gomez, 255 F.3d at 1128 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 501, 94 S.Ct.

669, 679 (1974)).

Plaintiff fails to demonstrate probable success on his claims or significant threat of irreparable

injury, especially given that his criminal proceedings continue. Plaintiff makes no attempt to

demonstrate even a fair chance of success on the merits or the existence of serious questions to require

litigation.

Furthermore, equitable remedies are “unavailable absent a showing of irreparable injury, a

requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the

plaintiff will be wronged again - a ‘likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury.’” City of

Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 111, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 1670 (1983) (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 502,

94 S.Ct. at 679). In this instance, Detective Burdick’s past conduct gives rise to plaintiff’s claims for

relief, and should plaintiff prevail, plaintiff’s injury will not go unrecompensed because plaintiff has an

adequate remedy at law. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 111, 103 S.Ct. at 1670. Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable

relief in this action for Detective Burdick’s past conduct because there is no allegation, and no argument

made by plaintiff, that he will be wronged again by Detective Burdick or the Bakersfield Police

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 07/20/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Department. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed below, this Court DENIES plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining

order and for preliminary injunction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

66h44d UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00453-LJO-JLT Document 35 Filed 07/20/07 Page 5 of 5