Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01382/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01382-0/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

18cv1382 MMA (PCL)

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

GAVIN B. DAVIS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondent.

Case No.: 18cv1382 MMA (PCL)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

On June 22, 2018, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, paid the $5.00 filing fee and 

submitted a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

ABSTENTION

The Petition must be dismissed because this Court is barred from consideration of 

the 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). 

Case 3:18-cv-01382-MMA-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv1382 MMA (PCL)

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

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. Petitioner states that on June 7, 

2018, he entered into a plea bargain in criminal proceedings. (Id. at 12.) Though not 

entirely clear, it appears that Petitioner was sentenced to probation. (See id. at 19.) 

Petitioner states the day after his guilty plea, he moved to withdraw his plea. The trial 

court denied the motion. Petitioner states that he then filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 

2018. (Id. at 12.) It appears that appeal is currently pending. As such, 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. Also, 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. 

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. 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.”)

FAILURE TO EXHAUST STATE COURT REMEDIES

In addition, the Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to allege exhaustion of 

state judicial remedies. Habeas petitioners who wish to challenge either their conviction 

or the length of their confinement, must first exhaust state judicial remedies. 28 U.S.C. 

Case 3:18-cv-01382-MMA-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv1382 MMA (PCL)

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

§ 2254(b), (c); Granberry v. Greer, 481 U.S. 129, 133-34 (1987). To exhaust state 

judicial remedies, a California state prisoner must present the California Supreme Court 

with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of every issue raised in his or her federal 

habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Granberry, 481 U.S. at 133-34.

Petitioner indicates that he filed a notice of appeal on June 8, 2018, which is 

apparently still pending. (Pet. at 12.) Because the appeal is still pending in state court, 

Petitioner has not alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) 

(“An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to 

the judgment of a State court shall not be granted unless it appears that - (A) the applicant 

has exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State; or (B)(i) there is an 

absence of available State corrective process; or (ii) circumstances exist that render such 

process ineffective to protect the rights of the applicant.”); O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 

U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (holding that the exhaustion doctrine is designed to give state court 

the first opportunity to pass upon alleged violations of state prisoner’s federal rights); 

Hendricks v. Zenon, 993 F.2d 664, 672 (9th Cir. 1993) (recognizing that the exhaustion 

doctrine is essentially a matter of federalism and comity which can be excused only “in 

rare cases where exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown to exist.”), 

quoting Granberry, 481 U.S. at 134. Because Petitioner has failed to allege exhaustion as 

to the only claim presented in the Petition, the Petition is subject to dismissal without 

prejudice. See Rasberry v. Garcia, 448 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Once a district 

court determines that a habeas petition contains only unexhausted claims, it need not 

inquire further into the petitioner’s intentions. Instead, it may simply dismiss the habeas 

petition for failure to exhaust.”), citing Jiminez v. Rice, 276 F.3d 478, 481 (9th Cir.

2001). 

CONCLUSION

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary dismissal 

of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits 

annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, 28 

Case 3:18-cv-01382-MMA-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv1382 MMA (PCL)

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

U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not presently 

entitled to federal habeas relief based on abstention grounds and because he has not 

alleged exhaustion of state court remedies. Based on the foregoing, the Court 

DISMISSES the case without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01382-MMA-PCL Document 2 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4