Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00695/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00695-1/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

ANTHONY MARCEL BEARD, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. )

)

 )

SUPERIOR COURT OF FRESNO )

COUNTY, )

 ) 

 )

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG HC 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

THAT PETITION BE DISMISSED (Doc. 1) 

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 May 9, 2007, Petitioner filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1).

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.

From a preliminary review of the instant petition, and from the Court’s review of the

California court system’s electronic database of cases, it appears that Petitioner was convicted of

the underlying charges in the Fresno County Superior Court on April 19, 2007, twenty days

before he filed the instant petition. (Doc. 1, p. 1). A review of the state court’s database

indicates that Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on May 3, 2007, in the Court of Appeal of the

State of California, Fifth Appellate District ( the “5th DCA”) case number F052780, just six days

Case 1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 01/15/08 Page 1 of 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

2

before he filed the instant petition. The state court database indicates that Petitioner’s state court

appeal is still pending and that Petitioner’s opening brief in his appeal has yet to be filed. The

direct appeal is far from being concluded. 

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 this longstanding public policy against

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

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; 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 undertaken for bad faith or for purposes of harassment or the statute

Case 1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 01/15/08 Page 2 of 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

3

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 Petitioner’s opening brief is not due until February 

2007. After the filing of the opening brief, the respondent’s brief will be filed and thereafter,

Petitioner’s reply brief. Once the case has been fully briefed, the 5th DCA will issue an opinion

in the case. 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 in its early stages

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 to the decision of the trial court to increase

the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony, the sufficiency of the evidence at the preliminary

hearing, and the ineffective assistance of trial counsel in the state court criminal proceedings that

are presently pending in 5th DCA case number F052780.

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). 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 01/15/08 Page 3 of 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

4

Here, it now seems apparent that Petitioner is seeking to have the federal 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

undertaken for bad faith or 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 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

(Doc. 1), be DISMISSED under Younger v. Harris.

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 District Judge 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

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00695-LJO-TAG Document 8 Filed 01/15/08 Page 4 of 4