Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00347/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00347-1/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOODY WOODROW TANKSLEY, )

 )

Petitioner, )

vs. )

 )

 )

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, )

et al., ) 

 )

 ) 

 )

 )

Respondents. )

_________________________________ )

1:06-cv-00347-OWW-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PETITION (Docs. 1 & 3). 

ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE

FILED WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

 On February 24, 2006, Petitioner filed the original petition in the United States District

Court for the Central District of California. (Doc. 1-2). On February 28, 2006, the case was

transferred to this Court. (Doc. 1-6). That petition was filed while Petitioner was in Kern

County Jail awaiting trial on charges that relate to an allegation that he made threats against

individuals and was in possession of arson materials with the intent to make a “Molotov

cocktail.” (Doc. 1-2, p. 11-12). The grounds for the original petition are set forth in a rambling,

disjointed and virtually incomprehensible paragraph in which Petitioner makes at least the

following claims: (1) factual innocence of the charges against him; (2) violations of state law in

charging him with multiple crimes arising out of a single factual nexus; (3) conflict of interest

with his appointed trial attorney; and (4) his life has been endangered by detaining him in a

facility with gang members. (Doc. 1-2). The original petition attached two exhibits, including a

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 1 of 5
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

January 2006 police report and a January 2006 fire department crime report. (Doc. 1-2, pp. 11-

15). On April 6, 2006, Petitioner filed the instant amended petition. (Doc. 3). That amended

petition references the January 2006 police report as well as the claims contained in the original

petition, but fails to list any grounds in that section of the form petition reserved for listing the

petitioner’s grounds for relief. (Doc. 3 at pp. 3, 6). 

Construing Petitioner’s claims liberally, it thus appears to the Court that Petitioner did not

intend to file the amended petition as an amended petition, but rather as a supplement to the

original petition, since the amended petition contains no grounds for relief, but merely lists

additional information about his situation and attempts to incorporate by reference into the

amended petition some of the exhibits and claims contained in the original petition. 

Accordingly, rather than requiring Petitioner to submit yet another amended petition properly

listing his claims on the form, the Court will construe the amended petition as a supplement to

the original petition and preliminarily screen both petitions together. 

DISCUSSION

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

petition if 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 of the Rules Governing § 2254

Cases.

A federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting

injunctive or declaratory relief except under special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.

37, 43-45 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68- 69 (1971). Younger and its progeny are

based on the interests of comity and federalism that counsel federal courts to maintain respect for

state functions and not unduly interfere with the state’s good faith efforts to enforce its own laws

in its own courts. Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S.

423, 431 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of California, Los Angeles, 23

F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Lebbos v. Judges of Superior Court, Santa Clara, 883 F.2d 810,

813 (9th Cir.1989). The Younger doctrine stems from the longstanding public policy against

federal court interference with state court proceedings. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43. Federal courts

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 5
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

should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or

harassment. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (holding that the cost, anxiety and inconvenience of

criminal defense are not the kind of special circumstances or irreparable harm that justify federal

court intervention); Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 225-226. Nor is federal injunctive relief to be used to

test the validity of an arrest or the admissibility of evidence in a state criminal proceeding. Perez

v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 83-85 (1971).

The Ninth Circuit follows a three-prong test espoused by the Supreme Court to determine

whether abstention under the Younger doctrine is appropriate. Younger abstention is required

when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve

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

constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432; Delta Dental Plan of

California, Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.1998); Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223. 

If these three requirements are met, the Court must also consider whether any of the

narrow exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine apply. The Court need not abstain if the

state court proceedings were prosecuted in bad faith or for purposes of harassment, or the statute

at issue is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Dubinka, 23

F.3d at 223-225; Lebbos, 883 F.2d at 816. The extraordinary circumstances exception recognizes

that a federal court need not abstain when faced with a statute that is flagrantly unconstitutional

in every clause. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 225.

The first requirement is satisfied here because the state criminal proceedings related to

Petitioner’s conviction have not been concluded. It appears from the Court’s review of the

California Courts’ electronic database that, subsequent to the filing of the original petition,

Petitioner was in fact convicted on the charge of possession of arson materials and sentenced to a

term of four years in state prison. It also appears that the notice of appeal in Petitioner’s direct

appeal from his conviction was filed on March 27, 2007, and that Petitioner filed his Opening

Brief on appeal on November 20, 2007. Respondent’s brief is due on December 20, 2007. Once

the case has been fully briefed, the state Court of Appeal will issue an opinion in the case. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 3 of 5
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

4

 At that point, Petitioner would have further remedies on direct appeal in the California Supreme

Court. In other words, Petitioner’s direct appeal is pending and is far from being concluded.

The second requirement is satisfied because an important state interest, that of not having

the federal courts interfere in state criminal proceedings by precluding a prosecution, is at issue

here. See Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223. The Court is loathe to insert itself into state criminal

proceedings absent a compelling reason. Finally, the third requirement is met because Petitioner

can address his federal constitutional claims related the alleged conflict of interest with his

attorney, his factual innocence, the legality of convicting appellant on multiple charges arising

from a single incident, and the legality of his conditions of incarceration, in the state court

criminal proceedings that are presently pending.

Cost, anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense are not the kind of special

circumstances or irreparable harm that justify federal court intervention. Younger, 401 U.S. at

46, 53-54. The rationale of Younger applies throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that

state appellate review of a conviction be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted.

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-611 (1975); Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (stating that

even if the trial is complete at the time of the abstention decision, state court proceedings are still

considered pending). 

Here, Petitioner is seeking to have the Court intervene in an ongoing state criminal

prosecution. This is precisely the type of circumstance to which the Younger doctrine was

intended to apply. Petitioner has not established that any exception to Younger abstention is

applicable in this case, i.e., that the state court proceedings were prosecuted in bad faith or

undertaken for purposes of harassment. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223, 225; Lebbos, 883 F.2d at 816. 

Indeed, as the state criminal proceedings are currently pending, Petitioner can raise those

concerns within the context of those state court proceedings.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the amended petition for writ of habeas

corpus (Docs. 1 & 3), be DISMISSED. 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 4 of 5
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

5

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

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

Within twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections

with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District

Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-00347-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 12/06/07 Page 5 of 5