Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00146/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00146-0/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

19cv0146 WQH (AGS)

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

JEFFREY RYAN RENTERIA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM GORE, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19cv0146 WQH (AGS)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 1.) The Petition must be 

dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from consideration of his 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) (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).

/ / /

Case 3:19-cv-00146-WQH-AGS Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv0146 WQH (AGS)

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 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 on January 22, 2019, he stated he was arrested on July 27, 2018, that he 

was illegally incarcerated and his sentence start date and projected release dates were 

unknown. (Pet., ECF No. 1 at 2.) He also stated that he has been “illegally held since 

May 2018 and [has] not been given a speedy and public trial.” (Id. at 6.) 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 he 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 him an adequate opportunity to raise his claims, and this Court 

specifically rejects such an argument. 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.”)

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, his Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.1 Juidice v. 

 

1 Petitioner filed a similar petition for writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed on January 3, 2019 

for the same reasons discussed in this Order. (See Order filed Jan. 3, 2019 in case No. 18cv2823 WQH

(KSC) [ECF No. 3].)

Case 3:19-cv-00146-WQH-AGS Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv0146 WQH (AGS)

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

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

not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.)

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because 

this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings 

pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00146-WQH-AGS Document 2 Filed 01/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3