Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01357/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01357-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL BELL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

TERRY McNALLY, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1357 REC/LJO

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION

TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

On October 27, 2005, Paul Bell, proceeding in pro per, filed

a "Complaint for Denial of a Jury Trial and Due Process of Law,

and Motion for a Court Order Writ of Mandate". Named as

defendants are Terry McNally, Kern County Superior Court

Executive Officer, and Ed Jagels, Kern County District Attorney.

The Complaint is accompanied by an application to proceed in

forma pauperis.

It appearing from the application to proceed in forma

pauperis that plaintiff is unable to afford the costs of suit,

the application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Case 1:05-cv-01357-REC-LJO Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 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

2

A trial court may dismiss a complaint sua sponte where the

plaintiff cannot possibly win relief. Omar v. Sea-Land Service,

Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9 Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d th

359, 361-362 (9 Cir. 1981). th

In his Complaint, plaintiff alleges that he is being denied

his right to a jury trial for two infractions issued to him for

conduct in violation of the California Vehicle Code, to wit for

jaywalking in violation of California Vehicle Code § 21955, and

for failing to wear a seatbelt in violation of California Vehicle

Code § 27315(d). Plaintiff also alleges that a criminal

complaint has not been issued by the District Attorney’s Office

in connection with one of the infractions. Plaintiff alleges

that he appeared before Kern County Superior Court Judge Gary

Witt on October 21, 2005 and “was denied a Criminal Complaint,

the right to Demur to the charges, nor would a trial by jury be

allowed.” Finally, plaintiff alleges that California Vehicle

Code § 27315(d) does not apply to him because he is not subject

to the federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act or licensed to

participate in vehicular commerce. Plaintiff prays for:

[A] Court Order, in the form of a Writ of

Mandamus, to stop all unlawful proceedings in

the Kern County Superior Court system against

Paul Bell; and that the Superior Court

provide him a Criminal Complaint and a trial

by jury. Plaintiff also prays that this

court grant to him expenses incurred by this

litigation and what ever compensation and

relief it deems proper.

Pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), a

district court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction where:

Case 1:05-cv-01357-REC-LJO Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 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

3

(1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state

proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state

proceedings afford the federal plaintiff an adequate opportunity

to litigate federal constitutional claims. See Weiner v. County

of San Diego, 23 F.3d 263, 266 (9 Cir. 1994). th

 Here, according to the allegations of the Complaint, the

criminal proceedings against plaintiff are proceeding. In

addition, the criminal proceedings against plaintiff involve

important state interests. Finally, the state proceedings afford

plaintiff an adequate opportunity to litigate federal

constitutional claims because plaintiff can raise those claims 

on appeal and pursuant to California’s writ procedures. Because

the court concludes that all three factors support abstention

pursuant to Younger v. Harris, the court dismisses this action

without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01357-REC-LJO Document 5 Filed 11/01/05 Page 3 of 3