Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02019/USCOURTS-cand-1_15-cv-02019-0/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUREKA DIVISION

MIGUEL ANGEL CISNEROS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BRIAN DONNELLAN, et. al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR)

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO

SHOW CAUSE

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a detainee incarcerated at San Mateo

County Jail. Plaintiff is awaiting trial and states that his attorney is not properly

representing him and important documents and evidence are being hidden. Plaintiff seeks

for this court to investigate the handling of his case.

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). Federal

courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's

bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently

violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost,

anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or

irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be

unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is

applied). Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary circumstance" that (1) the

party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will

suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d

Case 1:15-cv-02019-NJV Document 8 Filed 06/29/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is

incompetent by reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973). A

party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those

serving as adjudicators. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708,

713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted). 

Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to

Younger.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff shall show cause by within twenty-one (21) days, why this case should not

be dismissed. Failure to reply will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2015. 

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:15-cv-02019-NJV Document 8 Filed 06/29/15 Page 2 of 2