Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00802/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00802-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

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

MARK HAMILTON,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 14CV802 BEN (DHB)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

vs.

UNNAMED RESPONDENTS,

Respondents.

On April 2, 2014, Petitioner Mark Hamilton filed a petition seeking the Court’s

intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings in San Diego Superior Court. 

(Docket No. 1.) The Court has construed his filing as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It appears from the Petition that Petitioner disputes the charges

that have been filed against him and takes issue with the state court judge entering a

not guilty plea for him when he refused to enter a plea, believing the state court did not

have jurisdiction because he was arrested at a border crossing. 

The Court has reviewed the Petition and finds it must be dismissed. Under

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with ongoing

state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)

(Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with

pending state judicial proceedings.”) 

///

- 1 - 14cv802

Case 3:14-cv-00802-BEN-DHB Document 7 Filed 10/01/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Absent extraordinarycircumstances, abstention under Youngerisrequired when:

“(1) state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state

interests; (3) the state proceedings provide the federal litigant an adequate opportunity

to raise the federal claims; and (4) the federal proceeding would interfere with the state

proceedings in a way that Younger disapproves.” Lazarus v. Baca, 389 Fed. App’x

700, 700 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s dismissal of habeas petition

challenging excessive bail); San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political

Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). 

All four of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the instant

Petition, he had been arraigned on the state charges against him. Thus Petitioner’s

criminal case is still ongoing in the state courts. Further, there is no question that the

state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. The Court has no reason

to think the issues Petitioner raises, a state law defense to the charges against him and

the state court’s jurisdiction to hear those charges, will not be adequately addressed in

the state proceedings. Finally, although it is not entirely clear what relief Petitioner

seeks, any intrusion into the ongoing criminal proceedings would surely interfere with

state proceedings in a way Younger disapproves. “[O]nly in the most unusual

circumstancesis a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of . . . habeas

corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case

concluded in the state courts.” Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.

1980) (quoting Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)). 

The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2014

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge

- 2 - 14cv802

Case 3:14-cv-00802-BEN-DHB Document 7 Filed 10/01/14 Page 2 of 2