Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01329/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01329-1/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORION S. EHRINGER,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Respondents.

No. 2:15-cv1329 MCE KJN P

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee1proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a 

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 13, 2015, petitioner filed a request 

to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Petitioner submitted a declaration 

that makes the showing required by § 1915(a). Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma 

pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

Because petitioner’s criminal proceedings are pending, the court must abstain from 

addressing his claims. Under principles of comity and federalism, 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 (1971). Younger abstention 

 

1

 Petitioner claims he is in custody pursuant to a “civil commitment,” but identifies the reason for 

his commitment as making threats, suggesting he is facing criminal charges. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 

Petitioner also cites Section 136.2 as one of the reasons for his commitment, which involves 

charges for intimidating or dissuading a victim or witness. Cal. Penal Code § 136.2. 

Case 2:15-cv-01329-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/29/15 Page 1 of 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

2

is required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve 

important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the 

constitutional issue. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 

432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994).

All three of the Younger criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner is facing criminal charges in 

state court, and such proceedings are pending. Petitioner states that he pled not guilty, and that he 

is awaiting trial. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Second, the state has an important interest in adjudicating 

state criminal proceedings, and, third, such proceedings afford petitioner an opportunity to raise 

his constitutional claims. Moreover, petitioner has made no showing that extraordinary 

circumstances exist that would require federal intervention. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 

(holding extraordinary circumstances exist when there is danger of great and immediate 

irreparable loss; but cost, anxiety and inconvenience of defending against good-faith criminal 

prosecution are not extraordinary circumstance requiring federal intervention). Therefore, the 

court should abstain from interfering with the state judicial process, and the petition should be 

dismissed without prejudice.

Also, petitioner requested the appointment of counsel. There currently exists no absolute 

right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 

(9th Cir. 1996). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage 

of the case “if the interests of justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Fed. R. Governing § 2254 Cases. 

In the present case, the court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the 

appointment of counsel at the present time. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis; 

2. Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7) is denied without 

prejudice; and

IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be 

dismissed without prejudice. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

////

Case 2:15-cv-01329-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/29/15 Page 2 of 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

3

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 

Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a certificate of 

appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A certificate of appealability 

may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Petitioner is 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: July 29, 2015

/ehri1329.younger

Case 2:15-cv-01329-MCE-KJN Document 8 Filed 07/29/15 Page 3 of 3