Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05747/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05747-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES J. REEM,

Plaintiff,

v.

VICKI HENNESSY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-05747-SI 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1

James J. Reem, an inmate at the San Francisco County Jail, filed this pro se prisoner's civil 

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The complaint is now before the court for review pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. 

BACKGROUND

The complaint alleges the following: Reem was arrested by the San Francisco Police 

Department without a warrant at 11:00 a.m. on July 28, 2017, and was not taken before a magistrate 

until about a hundred hours later, at 2:30 p.m. on August 1, 2017. Reem “was not given a probable 

cause determination hearing.” Docket No. 1 at 3. The District Attorney “filed complaint past 

allotted time constraint.” Id. “The SFPD held all information in case for 71 hours well past the time 

allotted for a neutral magistrate to review information to determine probable cause.” Id. “The SF 

County Courts do not have neutral determinations hearing of probable cause for continued 

detention.” Id. 

The prayer for relief in the complaint requests declaratory and injunctive relief “for others 

suffering these violations,” “adjustment and review of information in [Reem’s] case,” and the 

dismissal of the charges and his release from custody. Id.

Case 3:18-cv-05747-SI Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

In a habeas action filed by Reem to challenge the bail determination in his criminal case, he 

filed a copy of the reporter’s transcript of the August 1, 2017, arraignment proceedings. Docket No. 

1-2 at 52 in Reem v. Hennessey, No. 17-cv-6628 CRB. At the very outset of the proceeding, Reem’s 

counsel waived arraignment and entered a not-guilty plea for him. Id. According to an order filed 

in that habeas action on December 12, 2018, the criminal charges are still pending against Reem. 

DISCUSSION

A federal court must engage in a preliminary screening of any case in which a prisoner seeks 

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a). The court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims which are 

frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See id. at § 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se complaints 

must be liberally construed. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010). 

As a pro se litigant, Reem does not have standing to complain about violations of anyone’s 

rights but his own. See Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 1962) (“a litigant 

appearing in propria persona has no authority to represent anyone other than himself”). He thus

cannot pursue claims that other inmates have had problems with their arraignments, as he indicated 

a desire to do in a letter he sent to the court. Docket No. 11 at 3. This action is confined to claims 

about violations of Reem’s legal rights and potential remedies therefor. 

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing 

state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Requests for declaratory relief 

that would interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings are subject to the same restrictions that 

govern requests for injunctive relief. See Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 71–74 (1971); Perez v. 

Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 86 n. 2 (1971). 

Younger requires that federal courts refrain from enjoining or otherwise interfering with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings where three conditions are met: (1) state judicial proceedings 

are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the plaintiff has 

Case 3:18-cv-05747-SI Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the opportunity to raise his federal constitutional concerns in the ongoing proceedings. Middlesex 

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of 

Superior Court of State of Cal. For County of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Here, all three prongs of the abstention test are met. First, the state criminal proceedings are 

ongoing in San Francisco County Superior Court. Second, the criminal prosecution involves 

important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the 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). Third, Reem can present his claims in the state trial and 

appellate courts. His claims that the probable cause proceedings were untimely and inadequate, and 

his requests for his release from custody and dismissal of the charges against him as a result of those 

alleged constitutional inadequacies are matters that he has an opportunity to raise in the state 

criminal case and/or appeal.1(Not only can Reem’s claims be raised in state court, the state superior 

court is in perhaps a better position to determine the meaning of the exchange between the judge 

and counsel in which defense counsel waived arraignment.)

Even when the three-pronged test is satisfied, however, a party may avoid application of the 

abstention doctrine if he can show that he would suffer “irreparable harm” that is both “great and 

immediate” if the federal court declines jurisdiction, that there is bad faith or harassment on the part 

of the state in prosecuting him, or that the state tribunal is biased against the federal claim. See

Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 437; Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124–25 (1975); Younger, 401 U.S. at 

46. Here, plaintiff does not make any plausible non-conclusory allegation of irreparable harm, bad 

faith, harassment, or bias of the tribunal. See generally Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53–54 (cost, anxiety 

and inconvenience of criminal defense is not the kind of special circumstance or irreparable harm 

that would justify federal intervention). The Younger factors weigh strongly against interfering with 

 

1 A fourth requirement has also been articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court 

action would enjoin the state proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere 

with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 

546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). That requirement is satisfied because the relief 

sought by Reem – release from custody and dismissal of state criminal cases – plainly would 

interfere with the state criminal case in a way that Younger disapproves.

Case 3:18-cv-05747-SI Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

California’s criminal justice system. Younger abstention is warranted. See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 

327, 348 (1977) (where a district court finds Younger abstention appropriate, the court may not 

retain jurisdiction and should dismiss the action). The action must be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

This action is dismissed because Younger abstention is warranted. The clerk shall close the 

file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2019

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05747-SI Document 12 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4