Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00507/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00507-0/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

19-CV-507 JLS (KSC)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY R. RENTERIA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19-CV-507 JLS (KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”). The 

Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from consideration 

of Petitioner’s claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 

37 (1971). 

Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal 

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see also Middlesex Cnty.

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (“[Younger] espouse[d] 

a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial 

proceedings.”) These concerns are particularly important in the habeas context where a 

state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue 

moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).

Case 3:19-cv-00507-JLS-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-507 JLS (KSC)

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

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when 

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing, (2) the state proceedings involve important state 

interests, and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 

issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 

2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the instant 

Petition on March 15, 2019, he stated he had been arrested on July 27, 2018, and that he 

had filed a motion to dismiss in state court, which was denied on March 5, 2019. Pet. at 3. 

He claims Younger does not apply because he was detained illegally. Id. at 1–11. But 

Petitioner’s criminal case is still ongoing in the state courts. Further, there is no question 

that the state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. Finally, Petitioner has 

failed to show that he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 

issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to support a contention that the state 

courts do not provide him an adequate opportunity to raise his claims, and this Court 

specifically rejects such an argument. Abstention is therefore required. See Huffman v. 

Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (holding that Younger applies to state appellate 

proceedings as well as ongoing proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 

F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant 

entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the 

jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state 

courts.”)

Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist 

that would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing state 

criminal proceedings, his Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1

 Juidice v. 

 

1 Petitioner filed two similar petitions for writ of habeas corpus, one that was dismissed on January 3, 

2019, for the same reasons discussed in this Order, see Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice, Renteria 

v. Gore, No. 18-CV-2823 WQH (KSC) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019), ECF No. 3, and one that was dismissed 

on January 29, 2019. See Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice, Renteria v. Gore, No. 19-CV-146 

WQH (AGS) (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019).

Case 3:19-cv-00507-JLS-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-507 JLS (KSC)

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

Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that, if Younger abstention applies, a court may 

not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

because this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal 

proceedings pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00507-JLS-KSC Document 2 Filed 03/29/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3