Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00688/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-00688-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Edwin Cortes, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

State of Arizona, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 12-00688-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it plaintiff's expedited emergency motion for emergency

injunction (doc. 1). Plaintiff filed a motion for protective order two days later (doc. 4). This

document appears to be identical to his first motion, with the added update that one of his

recent motions filed in state court was just denied. We also have before us plaintiff's motion

to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2). Plaintiff's fifty-one page emergency motion and

motion for protective order are difficult to follow. Although plaintiff seems to be challenging

the validity of a state criminal conviction, it is unclear what he is asking this court to do.

Plaintiff appears to be simultaneously challenging his conviction in state court. Plaintiff filed

a special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals on March 30, 2012, which was denied on

April 4, 2012. 

Under Younger v. Harris, "[a]bsent 'extraordinary circumstances', abstention in favor

of state judicial proceedings is required if the state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate

important state interests, and (3) provide the plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate

Case 2:12-cv-00688-FJM Document 5 Filed 04/04/12 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

federal claims." Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of the State of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 712

(9th Cir. 1995). Younger abstention applies to cases on direct appeal. See Dubinka v.

Judges of the Superior Court of the State of Cal. for the Cnty. of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218,

223 (9th Cir. 1994) (noting that Younger applies where a litigant "has not exhausted his state

appellate remedies"). An ongoing state criminal proceeding implicates important state

interests. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2004) (Younger originally

applied to prevent federal interference with state criminal proceedings). Even if a plaintiff

has not attempted to present federal claims in the state proceeding, we "should assume that

state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority

to the contrary." Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1528 (1987).

If Younger applies, we "must dismiss" an action. Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d

613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, although plaintiff does not inform us of the status of his

criminal case, it appears that he is actively appealing his conviction. Plaintiff has not

presented any evidence suggesting that the Arizona appellate courts do not afford a remedy

for plaintiff's federal claims. Considering the importance that Younger places on comity, we

think it prudent to conclude that Younger abstention applies in this case. 

Two narrow exceptions to Younger exist. Abstention is inappropriate where (1) the

state action is motivated by harassment or bad faith, or (2) the "challenged statute is

'flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause,

sentence and paragraph. . . against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.'" Huffman

v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 611, 95 S. Ct. 1200, 1212 (1975) (citation omitted). To

establish bad faith, plaintiff must show that a prosecution was commenced "without a

reasonable expectation" of conviction. Baffert, 332 F.3d at 621 (citation omitted). Plaintiff

has not presented any facts that would permit us to conclude that either exception applies.

Accordingly, we must abstain. This decision will not prejudice plaintiff in the event that we

misinterpreted the status of his criminal case, as dismissal on Younger grounds is without

prejudice.

Case 2:12-cv-00688-FJM Document 5 Filed 04/04/12 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiff's filings suggest that he needs to speak with a lawyer. If he does not have

one, he may wish to contact the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa County Bar

Association at 602-257-4434.

IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's expedited emergency motion for emergency

injunction (doc. 1). IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion for protective order

(doc. 4). IT IS ORDERED DENYING plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on

grounds of mootness (doc. 2). This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED this 4th day of April, 2012.

Case 2:12-cv-00688-FJM Document 5 Filed 04/04/12 Page 3 of 3