Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01513/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01513-0/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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

" -, 

~ ::_ c,'~ 

2015 JUL 14 At110: 09 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RONALD BROWN, Civil No. 15-1513 BEN (KSC) 

v. 

UNKNOWN, 

Petitioner, 

Respondent. 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

18 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He has not paid the $5.00 filing fee nor 

19 has he filed a motion to proceed informa pauperis. 

20 The Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from 

21 consideration of his claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 

22 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state 

23 criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex 

24 Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger 

25 "espouse[ d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 

26 judicial proceedings."). These concerns are particularly important in the habeas context 

27 where a state prisoner's conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the 

28 federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632,634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

-1- 15cv1513 

Case 3:15-cv-01513-BEN-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 2
> • 

1 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 

2 (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important 

3 state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the 

4 federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass 'n v. City o/Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th 

5 Cir. 2001); see also Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger 

6 abstention applies, a court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action). 

7 All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner is in custody in George 

8 Bailey Detention Facility, the county jail, and the Petition indicates his criminal case is 

9 currently ongoing in San Diego Superior Court. (See Pet. at 1-11.) Further, there is no 

10 question that the state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. 

11 Finally, Petitioner has not shown he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity 

12 to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner's complaints about counsel are the 

13 just type of claims that the state courts provide an opportunity to raise on direct appeal; 

14 abstention is therefore required. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) 

15 (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings as well as ongoing proceedings in state 

16 trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764,764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) ("[O]nly in the 

17 most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way 

18 of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed 

19 from that the case concluded in the state courts."). 

20 Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist 

21 which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing 

22 state criminal proceedings, his Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

24 

25 DATED: Ju0-, 2015 

26 

27 

28 

-2-

ON. T. BENITEZ 

United States District Judge 

15cv1513 

Case 3:15-cv-01513-BEN-KSC Document 4 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 2