Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01398/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01398-0/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

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRAVIS CUELLAR.,

Petitioner,

v.

MADERA COUNTY SHERIFF,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-01398-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION

Petitioner is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a 

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition in 

this Court on November 15, 2024. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds it should abstain 

from interfering in ongoing state proceedings pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 

and will recommend the petition be dismissed without prejudice. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

Case 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 11/21/24 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

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.

2001).

B. Abstention

Petitioner is in the custody of the Madera County Jail pending trial on felony counts of

embezzlement and forgery. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He states he has been in state custody since September 

6, 2024. (Doc. 1 at 2.) He contends his right to a speedy trial is being violated by the state court’s 

various continuances in the underlying case. (Doc. 1 at 4.) 

It is premature for this Court to review Petitioner’s collateral attack on his conviction 

because Petitioner is currently awaiting trial on his felony counts in the Madera County Superior 

Court. Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not enjoin pending state 

criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 49, 53. Younger abstention 

prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction when three criteria are met: 1) there are ongoing 

state judicial proceedings; 2) an important state interest is involved; and 3) there is an adequate 

opportunity to raise the federal question at issue in the state proceedings. H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. 

Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Younger criteria are satisfied here. First, Petitioner is awaiting trial, and thus, state 

judicial proceedings are ongoing. Second, criminal trials implicate an important state interest in 

enforcing criminal laws without federal interference. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 

(1986) (“[T]he States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 

interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court 

considering equitable types of relief”) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). Finally, the California 

state courts provide an adequate forum in which Petitioner may pursue his claims. See Pennzoil 

Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“[A] federal court should assume that state procedures 

will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.”). When 

the state proceedings have fully concluded, and if Petitioner is found guilty, he may seek federal 

habeas relief. See, e.g., Fellows v. Matteson, 2020 WL 4805022 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) 

(prisoner “may seek federal habeas relief after his California state criminal proceedings, . . ., have 

Case 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 11/21/24 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

concluded with a final judgment of conviction.”). For these reasons, the Court does not find that 

extraordinary circumstances warrant intervention.

II. ORDER

The Clerk of Court is hereby DIRECTED to randomly assign a district judge to this case.

III. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS the petition be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 

twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 

party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 

should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 

not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 

consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 

exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 

number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 

excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 

reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 

of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 

recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 

should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01398-KES-SKO Document 6 Filed 11/21/24 Page 3 of 3