Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03393/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03393-1/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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

KENNETH D. PHELON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

JEREMY D. HAMMAN, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No: C 09-3393 SBA 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDING - 

ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERIOR 

COURT DOCKET # 542408

[Docket Nos. 33, 34] 

 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kenneth D. Phelon's ("Plaintiff") Motion to 

Stay Proceeding - Alameda County Superior Court Docket # 542408 ("Motion to Stay") and 

Motion for Emergency Expedited Ruling on Motion to Stay Proceeding ("Motion for Expedited 

Ruling"). Plaintiff seeks to have this Court enjoin a criminal misdemeanor proceeding against him 

in Alameda County Superior Court alleging, inter alia, prosecutorial misconduct and that 

defendants in the instant civil rights action have kidnapped, intimidated and harassed witnesses for 

Plaintiff in the state action. Since the relief Plaintiff seeks in his Motion to Stay is in his 

Complaint, the Court liberally construes Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay as a motion for preliminary 

injunction. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and 

Motion for Expedited Ruling. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On July 23, 2009, Plaintiff filed the instant action alleging that members of the Oakland 

Police Department and the Alameda County Sheriff's Office, inter alia, conspired to charge him 

with attempted rape, kidnapping and assault. On September 23, 2009, defendants Jeremy 

Hamman, Jim Garrigan, Alameda County's Sheriff's Office and County of Alameda (“County 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 1 of 6
- 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 

Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6). (Docket No. 12.) On December 1, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to Amend 

Complaint to Add Plaintiff, specifically, Jolicia Kelley ("Kelley"). (Docket No. 26.) Plaintiff 

alleges that Kelley was kidnapped by defendants in this action as part of a conspiracy against him, 

but had previously been too scared to come forward. (Id.) On January 8, 2010, County Defendants 

filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint to Add 

Plaintiff, in which they recognized Plaintiff's right to amend his complaint as a matter of course 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1). (Docket No. 28.) 

 On January 11, 2010, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint 

to Add Plaintiff and ordered Plaintiff to amend his complaint to plead Kelley into the case within 

fourteen days. The Court also ordered defendants to respond to Plaintiff's amended complaint 

within thirty days of Plaintiff's filing. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within fourteen 

days as ordered by the Court. On February 22, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Stay. On 

February 25, 2010, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Expedited Ruling. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

To obtain preliminary injunctive relief, the moving party must show: (1) a likelihood of 

success on the merits; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party in the absence of 

preliminary relief; (3) a balance of equities tips in the favor of the moving party; and (4) that an 

injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ---U.S. ---, 129 S.Ct. 

365, 376 (2008); Am. Trucking Ass’ns Inc. v. City of Los. Angeles, 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 

2009) (holding that “[t]o the extent that our cases have suggested a lesser standard, they are no 

longer controlling, or even viable”). Preliminary injunctive relief is “an extraordinary and drastic 

remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of 

persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972 (1997) (citation and internal quotations 

omitted). 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

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 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants’ prosecution of him in state court constitutes a violation of 

his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As relief, Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, an injunction staying 

further state court proceedings. A federal court may intrude into a pending state proceeding “when 

absolutely necessary for protection of constitutional rights,” but only under “extraordinary 

circumstances, where the danger of irreparable loss is both great and immediate.” Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Younger and its progeny are based on the interests of comity and 

federalism that counsel federal courts to maintain respect for state functions and not unduly 

interfere with the state’s good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own courts. Middlesex 

County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982); San Jose Silicon 

Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm., 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). A 

federal court must abstain from interfering with a state court action under Younger “if four 

requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates 

important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional 

issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have 

the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that 

Younger disapproves.” Id.1

In the instant case, each of the four prongs required for application of Younger are satisfied. 

First, as Plaintiff readily acknowledges, the state court proceedings are ongoing. 

Second, the proceeding involves the enforcement of state criminal laws, which necessarily 

implicates important state interests. See Engle v. Issac, 456 U.S. 107, 128 (1982) (“Federal 

intrusions into state criminal trials frustrate both the States’ sovereign power to punish offenders 

and their good-faith attempts to honor constitutional rights.”). 

Third, Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing that he is barred from raising his federal 

claims in the state court action. Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 815 (9th Cir. 

 1 Federal courts may raise the issue of Younger abstention sua sponte. Martinez v. 

Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781, n.3 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Green 

v. City of Tuscon, 255 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001). 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

1989). For Younger abstention to apply, a party “need be accorded only an opportunity to fairly 

pursue [his] constitutional claims in the ongoing state proceedings.” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 

337 (1977). “[I]n the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary,” there is a presumption 

that state courts provide an adequate forum for the adjudication of federal claims. Pennzoil Co. v. 

Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 14 (1987). Plaintiff clearly states in his Motion to Stay that he "noticed 

the trial court about" his allegations regarding prosecutorial misconduct in his Demurrer, but that 

his "Demurrer was heard and overruled in October of 2009." (Mot. to Stay at 2.) Furthermore, that 

he informed the state trial court regarding his allegations pertaining to the actions of the defendants 

in the instant action, but that the trial court has not taken any action. Plaintiff has thus been 

afforded an opportunity raise his claims in state court. To the extent that Plaintiff disagrees with 

the decisions of the state court, he can appeal the state court's decisions. State courts routinely 

consider federal constitutional issues at trial and as part of the criminal appellate process. See, e.g., 

People v. Navarro, 138 Cal.App.4th 146, 156-61 (2006) (considering claim that sheriff had used 

privileged information in violation of right to counsel and attorney-client privilege). 

Finally, enjoining the state court action would interfere with the state proceeding in a way 

that Younger disapproves. "If a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing, and if it implicates 

important state interests... , and if the federal litigant is not barred from litigating federal 

constitutional issues in that proceeding, then a federal court action that would enjoin the 

proceeding... would interfere in a way that Younger disapproves." Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 

965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). 

In sum, under the Younger doctrine, the injunctive relief sought by Plaintiff in his 

Complaint, i.e., a stay of the state court proceedings, is not available. 

Thus, the four elements of determining the applicability of Younger abstention are satisfied 

in this case. Because it appears that Plaintiff’s complaint will have to be dismissed pursuant to the 

Younger abstention doctrine, at least insofar as his request for injunctive relief is concerned, 

Plaintiff has failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of its claims. Accordingly, his 

Motion for Stay must be denied. 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 4 of 6
- 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 

In the instant action, the Court shall afford Plaintiff a final opportunity to file a First 

Amended Complaint. Should Plaintiff fail to file a First Amended Complaint, his original 

complaint will be deemed the operative complaint in this action and Plaintiff shall be ordered to 

file a response to County Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Complaint. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

(1) Plaintiff shall have until March 31, 2010, to file a First Amended Complaint. 

(2) Defendants shall respond within 30 days of Plaintiff filing his First Amended 

Complaint. 

(3) Plaintiff's Motion to Stay is DENIED. 

(4) Plaintiff's Motion for Expedited Ruling is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 23, 2010 ____________________________ 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

KEN PHELON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

JEREMY D. HAMMAN et al, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Case Number: CV09-03393 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District 

Court, Northern District of California. 

That on March 25, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said 

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing 

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle 

located in the Clerk's office. 

Kenneth D. Phelon 

2932 - 55th Avenue 

Oakland, CA 94605 

Dated: March 25, 2010 

 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk 

 

 By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk 

Case 4:09-cv-03393-SBA Document 37 Filed 03/25/10 Page 6 of 6