Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02045/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02045-0/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

-1- 08cv2045

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE GUADARRAMA, Civil No. 08cv2045-BTM (CAB)

Petitioner,

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS,

DENYING MOTION FOR STAY,

AND DISMISSING PETITION

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.

LARRY SMALL, Warden,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison in Imperial, California,

proceeding pro se, has submitted a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis and a Motion for Stay. Petitioner

seeks to have this Court stay ongoing state court criminal proceedings against him arising from

a charge of attempted murder of a correctional officer, which Petitioner allegedly committed

during a riot at Calipatria. He contends he cannot receive a fair trial in Imperial County due to

biased jurors and judges, and seeks a change of venue.

Based on the information provided by Petitioner, the Court GRANTS the application to

proceed in forma pauperis, and allows Petitioner to prosecute the above-referenced action

without being required to prepay fees or costs and without being required to post security.

However, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from

consideration of Petitioner’s 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

Case 3:08-cv-02045-BTM-CAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/08 Page 1 of 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

-2- 08cv2045

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).

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). The first two of

these three criteria are clearly satisfied here, as Petitioner alleges that state criminal proceedings

are ongoing and that the nature of the proceedings, criminal prosecution for attempted murder

of a correctional officer, obviously involve important state interests. 

With respect to the third prong, Petitioner must demonstrate that state criminal procedures

“will not assure adequate vindication of constitutional rights.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 49.

Petitioner offers nothing to support a contention that the state courts do not provide him an

adequate opportunity to present a constitutional challenge to the jury venire in Imperial County

or to any particular panel or judge selected to try his case. Indeed, Petitioner’s claim that he is

unable to empanel an impartial jury or be tried by an impartial judge is just the type of claim that

the state courts provide an opportunity to present during the trial proceedings and on direct

appeal. Thus, all three of the Younger abstention criteria are present in this case, and the Court

must abstain from reaching Petitioner’s claims unless extraordinary circumstances exist which

warrant interference with his ongoing criminal proceedings.

Petitioner argues that extraordinary circumstances exist because Imperial County is a

relatively small county populated by a high proportion of state and federal law enforcement

officers with two large state prisons. (Pet. at 4-5.) He states that the criminal charges against

him arose from a riot at Calipatria in August of 2005 while he was a prisoner there, that the riot

was covered by the local media, and that many of the jurors in his case will likely be police

Case 3:08-cv-02045-BTM-CAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/08 Page 2 of 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 1

 United States Census Bureau information for 2007. See www.factfinder.census.gov last

visited Nov. 6, 2008.

-3- 08cv2045

officers, prison staff, and/or their friends, neighbors and family members. (Id. at 6-6A.) He

therefore contends that he cannot be provided with a fair trial in Imperial County due to biased

jurors and/or judges. (Id. at 6A-6B.) Petitioner appears to seek a change of venue for his

criminal trial (id. at 1), and attaches state court documents indicating he has exhausted state court

remedies through mandamus actions seeking a change of venue. 

In the Motion for Stay, Petitioner requests that this Court stay his ongoing criminal

proceedings and order a change of venue for his trial. (Pet.’s Mot. at 3-4.) He acknowledges

that he must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances in order to avoid Younger abstention, and

contends he has made such a showing for the reasons alleged in the Petition, namely, that he

cannot receive a fair trial in Imperial County. (Id. at 5-6.)

Petitioner does not present extraordinary circumstances necessary to avoid application

of the Younger abstention doctrine, but merely alleges that a high concentration of law

enforcement officers present in a County with a population of over 161,0001

 might result in his

inability to impanel an impartial jury or be assigned an impartial judge. The Supreme Court has

explained that the extraordinary circumstances exception to Younger is based on a policy of

restraint, which in turn is counseled by considerations of comity “founded on the ‘basic doctrine

of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to

restrain a criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will

not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.’” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 123

(1975), quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44. The Court in Kugler gave examples of possible

situations which might rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances, including bad faith or

harassment by state officials responsible for the prosecution, where the state law is “flagrantly

and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions,” or where irreparable injury can

otherwise be shown. Id.

Petitioner provides no basis for a finding that irreparable injury will arise if this Court

declines to interfere with his criminal proceedings. Even assuming his allegations are true, that

Case 3:08-cv-02045-BTM-CAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/08 Page 3 of 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

-4- 08cv2045

he will have a difficult time finding impartial judges or jurors due to the high proportion of law

enforcement officers residing in Imperial County, and/or due to the media coverage of the riot,

his federal constitutional right to a fair and impartial jury is well protected through his state

criminal proceedings. This Court must therefore abstain from addressing Petitioner’s claims.

Kugler, 421 U.S. at 123; Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-49; 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 requests this Court to interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings

which involve important state interests, and has failed to demonstrate that the state proceedings

do not afford him an adequate opportunity to raise his federal issues or that extraordinary

circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering

with his ongoing state criminal proceedings, his Motion for a Stay is DENIED and his 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

without prejudice.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is

GRANTED, his Motion for Stay is DENIED, and the Petition is DISMISSED without

prejudice because this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal

proceedings pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2008

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-02045-BTM-CAB Document 4 Filed 11/13/08 Page 4 of 4