Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02012/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651mn Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

1

18cv2012-CAB-WVG

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

ERICA D. HAYWOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO ,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv2012-CAB-WVG

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On August 21, 2018, Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a First Petition 

for Writ of Mandamus which, while somewhat incomprehensible, appears to involve

issues regarding her arrest on April 14, 2018 and the subsequent state court criminal 

proceedings. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner has filed several petitions in this Court involving 

the same or similar issues with regard to the April 14, 2018 arrest. See e.g. Haywood v. 

San Diego County Sheriff, 18cv2579-CAB-RBM (filed November 13, 2018); Haywood v. 

San Diego County Sheriff, 18cv1252-CAB-WVG (filed June 12, 2018). In Case No. 

18cv2579, filed after the Petition in this case was filed, Petitioner admitted that she had 

not yet received a decision on her direct appeal to the California Court of Appeal. 

[18cv2579, Doc. No. 1 at 2.] Therefore, just as in Case No. 18cv2579, this Petition must 

be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from consideration of the claims 

by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under 

Case 3:18-cv-02012-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18cv2012-CAB-WVG

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

Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent 

extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46.

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 this 

Petition, she admits that she has yet to receive a decision on her direct appeal to the

California Court of Appeal. [18cv2579, Doc. No. 1 at 2.] 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 she 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 her an adequate opportunity to 

raise her claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Indeed, Petitioner’s 

claims of errors in peremptory challenges and Marsden hearings are just the type of 

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

Petitioner admits she currently has an appeal pending in state court. (Id.) 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, her Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Juidice v. 

Case 3:18-cv-02012-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18cv2012-CAB-WVG

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.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 14, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02012-CAB-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3