Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02210/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-02210-0/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

17cv2210 CAB (KSC)

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

ROBERT L. NELSON, aka JAMAL 

MYXZ,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM GORE, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No.: 17cv2210 CAB (KSC)

ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION 

TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS; and (2) DISMISSING 

CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On October 27, 2017, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed submitted a Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The Court dismissed 

the action on November 3, 2017 because Petitioner had failed to satisfy the filing fee 

requirement or submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee, and had failed to a 

cognizable federal claim or name a proper respondent. (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner was 

given until January 8, 2018 to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and file a First Amended Petition that cured the pleading deficiencies 

outlined in the Court’s Order. (Id.) On December 13, 2017, Petitioner filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and a First Amended Petition. (ECF Nos. 3, 5.) 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Petitioner has $0.76 on account at the California correctional institution in which 

he is presently confined. Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee. Thus, the Court 

Case 3:17-cv-02210-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv2210 CAB (KSC)

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

GRANTS Petitioner’s 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. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.

ABSTENTION

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).

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. It is clear from the petition that 

Petitioner is currently involved in ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. (See Pet. 

at 1-2, 7, 10.) 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. Indeed, Petitioner’s 

claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and excessive bail are the just type of claims 

that the state courts provide an opportunity to raise on direct appeal. In addition, 

Case 3:17-cv-02210-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv2210 CAB (KSC)

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

Petitioner currently has a pending civil case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in this Court, 

case no. 17cv1913 GPC (KSC) in which he is pursuing his complaints regarding the 

circumstances of his arrest. 

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. 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.)

CONCLUSION

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

GRANTED and 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: December 18, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-02210-CAB-KSC Document 6 Filed 12/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3