Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02610/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02610-0/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERION D. VARNADO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

W.L. MONTGOMERY, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:15-cv-2610 GEB GGH P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Pending before the court is respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to the 

decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and for lack of exhaustion. Petitioner has not 

filed an opposition to the motion, but instead has filed an amended petition. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner is serving a sentence for a conviction of two counts of second degree robbery, 

one count of attempted robbery and one count of assault with a firearm. (Res’t’s Lod Doc. 1.) 

Petitioner appealed, and the California Supreme Court granted review and that appeal is currently 

pending. (Res’t’s Lod. Doc. 4.) In his amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, filed after the 

motion to dismiss, petitioner claims that his constitutional rights have been violated by: (1) 

 

1

 Petitioner paid the filing fee on March 15, 2016. (ECF. No. 9.) 

Case 2:15-cv-02610-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 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

insufficient evidence of kidnap/robbery; (2) trial court error in rejecting defense request for jury 

instruction on movement of victim; (3) trial court error in permitting evidence of shooting case in 

robbery trial which was fundamentally unfair; and (4) trial court error in permitting detective to 

testify about Abel Guiterrez identifications of petitioner and co-defendants two days after 

robbery. (Am.Pet., ECF No. 15 at 6-7.) 

DISCUSSION 

I. Younger Abstention 

Respondent moves to dismiss, arguing that the court should invoke the abstention doctrine 

and dismiss petitioner's amended habeas petition in light of his ongoing direct appeal of criminal 

proceedings before the California Supreme Court, and based on lack of state court exhaustion. 

Instead of filing an opposition, petitioner has filed an amended petition which does not shed light 

on the matter.2

 The court has searched the California Supreme Court’s database and finds that it 

is undisputed that petitioner’s appeal is pending with the California Supreme Court. 

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2083798

&doc_no=S220271&search=party&start=1&query_partyLastNameOrOrg=Varnado&query_part

yFirstName=erion. 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, this court is barred from directly interfering with 

petitioner's ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 

& 48–50 (1971); Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir.2012) (“abstention principles 

generally require a federal district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a habeas 

petition in which the petitioner raises a claim under the Speedy Trial Clause as an affirmative 

defense to state prosecution.”); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir.1980) (exceptions to 

the general rule of federal abstention arise only in “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions 

undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or “in 

 

2

 The fact that petitioner was able to file an amended petition within the general time period that 

his opposition was due informs this court that petitioner was not unable to file an opposition or 

request for extension of time within which to file one, and that providing petitioner further 

opportunity to do so would not assist the court in deciding the motion, especially since the facts 

are undisputed. 

Case 2:15-cv-02610-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 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

other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”). Younger abstention 

is appropriate when the following criteria are met: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) 

the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide an 

adequate opportunity in state court to raise constitutional challenges. See Middlesex County 

Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515 (1982). 

This case meets the Younger abstention criteria. First, there is no dispute that petitioner's 

criminal proceedings are pending, and any relief granted here would interfere with those 

proceedings. Second, the ongoing criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. See 

Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49, 107 S.Ct. 353 (1986) (“This Court has recognized that 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.”). Finally, petitioner has adequate opportunity in state court to raise constitutional 

challenges. See Lebbos v. Judges of the Superior Court, 883 F.2d 810, 813 (9th Cir.1989) 

(“Abstention is appropriate based on ‘interest of comity and federalism [that] counsel federal 

courts to abstain from jurisdiction whenever federal claims have been or could be presented in 

ongoing state judicial proceedings that concern important state interests.’ ”). Petitioner has 

already raised all of the same claims he presents in his pending petition in the first state petition 

for review he filed. (Res't's Lod. Doc. 2.) The petition for review filed by the government raises 

a claim that the California Supreme Court is holding for deferred briefing pending decisions in 

two other cases. (Res’t’s Lod. Doc. 3.) Although petitioner may not have succeeded with respect 

to those claims at this point in the state proceedings, that does not render the forum inadequate. 

See Baffert v. California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.2003) (Younger 

abstention appropriate because plaintiff's “lack of success [in state court] does not render the 

forum inadequate.”) 

Lastly, petitioner has failed to establish that any exception to the Younger abstention 

doctrine applies in this case. In this regard, 

If state proceedings are conducted in bad faith or to harass the 

litigant, or other extraordinary circumstances exist, the district court 

may exercise jurisdiction even when the criteria for Younger

Case 2:15-cv-02610-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 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

abstention are met. See Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 578–79, 

93 S.Ct. 1689, 36 L.Ed.2d 488 (1973) (holding that Younger

abstention did not apply to a suit to enjoin a proceeding before an 

administrative board that had a pecuniary interest in the outcome); 

Partington v. Gedan, 961 F.2d 852, 861 (9th Cir.1992) (referring to 

the “‘bad faith and harassment’ exception” to Younger abstention). 

Baffert, 332 F.3d at 621. See also Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 225–26 

(9th Cir.1994) (federal court need not abstain in “extraordinary circumstances” such as when the 

state court proceedings are undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or are based 

upon a statute that is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in 

every clause, sentence and paragraph[.]”)); Lebbos, 883 F.2d at 816. Petitioner is seeking to have 

this court intervene in an ongoing state criminal prosecution—precisely the type of circumstance 

to which Younger abstention was intended to apply. Petitioner has failed to establish that any of 

the above noted exceptions to that doctrine apply in his case. 

 II. Exhaustion 

 Based on the pending California Supreme Court petition, this petition is also unexhausted. 

The exhaustion of state court remedies is a prerequisite to the granting of a petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1). If exhaustion is to be waived, it must be waived 

explicitly by respondent’s counsel. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(3).3 A waiver of exhaustion, thus, may 

not be implied or inferred. A petitioner satisfies the exhaustion requirement by providing the 

highest state court with a full and fair opportunity to consider all claims before presenting them to 

the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270, 276 (1971); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 

1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). 

 After reviewing the petition for habeas corpus and the California Supreme Court docket, 

the court finds that petitioner has failed to exhaust state court remedies. The claims have not been 

adjudicated by the California Supreme Court. Further, there is no allegation that state court 

remedies are no longer available to petitioner.4

 

 

3

 A petition may be denied on the merits without exhaustion of state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 

2254(b)(2). 

4

 Petitioner is cautioned that the habeas corpus statute imposes a one year statute of limitations 

for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one year period 

Case 2:15-cv-02610-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 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

For all of the foregoing reasons, respondent's motion to dismiss should be granted. 

CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 

certificate of appealability may issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 

findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 

not been made in this case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

1. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF. No. 13) be granted; 

2. Petitioner's amended petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 15) be dismissed 

without prejudice; 

3. This action be closed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. 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). 

Dated: June 13, 2016 

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

GGH:076/varn2610.fr 

 

will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of 

direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of 

limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral 

review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 

Case 2:15-cv-02610-GEB-GGH Document 16 Filed 06/14/16 Page 5 of 5