Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02579/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02579-0/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

18cv2579 CAB (RBM)

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

ERICA D. HAYWOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2579 CAB (RBM)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 

ABSTENTION

In any event, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is 

barred from consideration of the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger 

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, 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) 

Case 3:18-cv-02579-CAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 11/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2579 CAB (RBM)

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

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

pending state judicial proceedings.”). These concerns are particularly important in the 

habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby 

rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 

1983).

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important 

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the

federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th 

Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the 

instant Petition, she admits that she has yet to receive a decision on her direct appeal to 

the California Court of Appeal. (See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2.) 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. 

Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that she has not been afforded an adequate 

opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to 

support a contention that the state courts do not provide her an adequate opportunity to 

raise her claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Indeed, 

Petitioner’s claims of double jeopardy, errors in jury instructions, violation of her right to 

represent herself, etc., are the just type of claims that the state courts provide an 

opportunity to raise on direct appeal. In addition, Petitioner claims she currently has an 

appeal pending in state court. (Id.) Abstention is therefore required. See Huffman v. 

Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings as 

well as ongoing proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 

764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled 

to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury 

comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”)

Case 3:18-cv-02579-CAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 11/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2579 CAB (RBM)

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

Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist 

which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing 

state criminal proceedings, her Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Juidice v. 

Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may 

not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-02579-CAB-RBM Document 7 Filed 11/19/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3