Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03044-3/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 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JUAN POOLE II, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

SHERIFF GORE, 

 Respondent. 

Case No.: 14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF 

UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE RE: 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS 

[ECF No. 34] 

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to United States 

District Judge Barry T. Moskowitz pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

and Local Civil Rule 72.1(c) of the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of California. 

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court RECOMMENDS

that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED. 

// 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 1 of 8
2 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

A. FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS 

Juan Poole II (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se

and in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 18, 27). On December 23, 2014, 

Petitioner filed a Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United 

States District Court for the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 

1). On May 20, 2015, Petitioner filed the operative Third Amended 

Petition. (ECF No. 27). Petitioner raises four grounds for relief: (1) his 

free speech rights and right to petition grievances were violated during 

trial; (2) the conditions of his confinement constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment; (3) prosecutorial misconduct in suppressing exculpatory 

evidence during trial; and (4) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. 

On June 19, 2015, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the 

Third Amended Petition. (ECF Nos. 34, 35). On June 29, 2015, 

Petitioner signed a Response in Opposition to Respondent’s Motion to 

Dismiss. (ECF No. 38). On August 24, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

memorandum in support of his claims. (ECF No. 50). 

B. STATE PROCEEDINGS 

Petitioner was found guilty by a jury trial for unlawful taking 

and driving of a vehicle with a prior similar conviction (Cal. Veh. Code 

§ 10851(a) and Cal. Pen. Code § 666.5(a)) and grand theft automobile 

with a prior vehicle theft (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 487(d)(1) and 666.5(a)). 

(ECF No. 35-1 at 1). On January 9, 2014, Petitioner was sentenced to 

four years of confinement in the San Diego County jail. Id. On 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 2 of 8
3 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

December 19, 2014, Petitioner filed an appeal with the California 

Court of Appeal, which is currently pending. Id. 

On January 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in the San Diego County Superior Court. Id. at 2. On January 

26, 2015, the Superior Court denied Petitioner’s state petition because 

of the pending appeal. Id. 

On March 27, 2015, Petitioner filed a state petition for writ of 

habeas corpus in the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 35-5). On 

April 22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s state 

petition. Id. 

On April 27, 2015, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate 

with the California Supreme Court. (ECF No. 35-3). On May 22, 

2015, the California Supreme Court transferred the petition to the 

California Court of Appeal. Id. On June 4, 2015, the California Court 

of Appeal denied Petitioner’s state petition for writ of mandate. (ECF 

No. 35-4). 

II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 

 Respondent argues the Petition should be dismissed under the 

abstention doctrine set forth by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 

(ECF No. 34). Respondent further argues that Petitioner’s claims are 

unexhausted because the appeal is still pending. Id. Petitioner claims 

abstention is not warranted and his claims are exhausted. (ECF No. 

38). 

// 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 3 of 8
4 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

 The Younger abstention doctrine prohibits federal courts from 

enjoining pending state criminal prosecutions, unless extraordinary 

circumstances create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 

401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971). Younger abstention applies to both criminal 

proceedings and civil proceedings, “provided those proceedings 

implicate important state interests.” World Famous Drinking 

Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th Cir. 1987) 

(citing Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, 

Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1987)). Under Younger, federal courts are directed 

to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief if it would 

interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. Younger, 401 U.S. 

40-41; Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 

1997). 

Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state 

proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state 

interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate 

opportunity to raise federal questions. Martinez, 125 F.3d at 781; 

Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 

423, 432 (1982); Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 

1992). If the three requirements are met, “a district court must 

dismiss the federal action.” World Famous Drinking Emporium, 820 

F.2d at 1081. This is particularly important in the habeas corpus 

context because a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 4 of 8
5 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

appeal, rendering the federal habeas petition moot. Sherwood v. 

Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 

IV. DISCUSSION 

A. YOUNGER ABSTENTION 

 All three requirements of the Younger abstention doctrine are 

satisfied. First, Petitioner’s direct appeal from his trial is pending in 

the California Court of Appeal. (ECF No. 35-2 at 2). Second, the state 

criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Moore v. Sims, 

442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (explaining that Younger was first articulated 

with reference to state criminal proceedings). The State has an 

important interest in enforcing its criminal laws. See Huffman v. 

Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975). 

Third, the state appellate process provides an adequate 

opportunity for Petitioner to raise his constitutional challenges. 

Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (stating that the appellate 

process ordinarily provides a “fair and sufficient opportunity for 

vindication of federal constitutional rights.”). Petitioner should first 

“set up and rely upon his defense in the state courts . . . , unless it 

plainly appears that this course of action would not afford adequate 

protection.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 45 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 

U.S. 240, 243-244 (1926)). Petitioner has not shown the appellate 

process would not afford him an adequate opportunity to raise his 

constitutional issues. 

When abstention applies, federal courts may interfere with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings only in extraordinary 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 5 of 8
6 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

circumstances where a threat of irreparable injury exists. Younger, 

401 U.S. at 45-46. Irreparable injury does not exist if the threat to 

Petitioner’s federally protected rights may be eliminated by his defense 

of the criminal case. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Petitioner has not 

demonstrated that such extraordinary circumstances exist and his 

defense on appeal may eliminate the threat to his federally protected 

rights. As a result, abstention is required. 

B. EXHAUSTION 

 Petitioner argues that his claims are exhausted, and therefore 

ripe for consideration, because he filed a state habeas corpus petition 

in both the California Superior Court and California Supreme Court 

and a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal. (ECF No. 

38 at 3-4). Respondent argues a pending appeal makes federal 

proceedings unexhausted, requiring dismissal of the operative 

Petition. (ECF No. 34-1 at 5). 

 Petitioner’s claims have not been exhausted in state court 

because of his pending state action. Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634. When 

an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a habeas corpus 

petitioner “must await the outcome of his appeal before his state 

remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the 

writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.” Id. 

This is true even where the federal constitutional claims cannot be 

resolved in the pending appeal because the appeal may result in a 

reversal, mooting the federal issues. Id. 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 6 of 8
7 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

C. CIVIL RIGHTS: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “is a proper remedy 

for a state prisoner who is making a constitutional challenge to the 

conditions of his prison life, but not to the fact or length of his 

custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 499 (1973). Challenges 

to the conditions of confinement are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

and not under habeas corpus. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 

(1997). 

Petitioner’s second ground for relief alleges the conditions of his 

incarceration constitute cruel and unusual punishment. (ECF No. 27 

at 7). He explains that during incarceration, he endured “freezing, 

dangerous, unsanitary, and overcrowded living environments,” was 

“tortured through sound and abuse,” and was served raw food. (ECF 

Nos. 27, 50). This is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a claim for 

habeas relief. (ECF No. 27). Petitioner’s civil rights claim should be 

dismissed without prejudice. Trimble v. City of Santa Rosa, 49 F.3d 

583, 586 (9th Cir. 1995), Turner v. Yates, NO. CIV S 03-2248DFLPANP, 

2005 WL 1365132 (E.D.Cal.) (“Where a prisoner alleges some grounds 

for habeas relief and others for civil rights violations, the court should 

dismiss the civil rights claims without prejudice.”). 

As a result, this Court RECOMMENDS Petitioner’s second 

ground for relief be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This 

Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss 

be GRANTED. 

// 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 7 of 8
8 

14-cv-3044-BTM-MDD 

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

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED

that the District Court issue an Order: (1) Approving and Adopting 

this Report and Recommendation; (2) GRANTING Respondent’s 

Motion to Dismiss; and (3) Directing that judgment be entered 

dismissing the Petition without prejudice. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any written objections to this 

Report must be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later 

than September 18, 2015. The document should be captioned 

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objection 

shall be filed with the Court and served on all parties no later than 

September 25, 2015. The parties are advised that the failure to file 

objections within the specified time may waive the right to raise those 

objections on appeal of the Court’s order. See Turner v. Duncan, 158 

F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 26, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-03044-BTM-MDD Document 51 Filed 08/26/15 Page 8 of 8