Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02019/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02019-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

MIGUEL ANGEL CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BRIAN DONNELLAN, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a detainee incarcerated at San Mateo

County Jail. Plaintiff is awaiting trial and states that his attorney is not properly

representing him and important documents and evidence are being hidden. Plaintiff seeks

for this court to investigate the handling of his case. The court ordered plaintiff to show

cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,

43-54 (1971). Plaintiff has not filed a response.

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Federal

courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's

bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently

violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost,

anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or

irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be

unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is

applied). Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary circumstance" that (1) the

Case 1:15-cv-02019-NJV Document 11 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will

suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d

1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is

incompetent by reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973).

Plaintiff has failed to respond and a review of his complaint does not indicate

extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal court intervention. The complaint is

dismissed.

CONCLUSION

1. The motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2, 10) are VACATED.

2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth

above.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 6, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-02019-NJV Document 11 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 2