Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02520/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02520-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA DAVID WILLIAMS, Civil No. 14-2520 GPC (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DENYING IN FORMA

PAUPERIS APPLICATION AND

DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

v.

DIRECTOR of CALIFORNIA DEP’T

of CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, together

with a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

The request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied because Petitioner has not

provided the Court with sufficient information to determine Petitioner’s financialstatus. 

A request to proceed in forma pauperis made by a state prisoner must include a

certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer showing the amount of money

or securities Petitioner has on account in the institution. Rule 3(a)(2), 28 U.S.C. foll.

§ 2254; Local Rule 3.2. Petitioner has failed to provide the Court with the required

Prison Certificate. 

-1-

Case 3:14-cv-02520-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/29/14 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

ABSTENTION

Further, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred

from consideration of his 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

Middlesex County 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). Here, Petitioner states he was convicted on September 3, 2014. He does not

indicate whether a direct appeal has been filed with the California Court of Appeal. 

Petitioner alleges he has filed petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California

Supreme Court which isstill pending. Thus, proceedings are still ongoing in state court.

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 he filed the instant

Petition, Petitioner admits that he has yet to file a direct appeal with the California Court

of Appeal and has yet to receive a decision on his petition before the California Supreme

Court. (See Pet. at 2.) Thus his criminal case isstill ongoing in the state courts. Further,

there is no question that the state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. 

Petitioner has not indicated an inability to petition the state appellate or supreme

court to address his claims. See People v. Pompa-Ortiz, 27 Cal.3d 519, 529 (1980)

(recognizing that an application for an extraordinary writ may be made to the state

appellate court regarding non-jurisdictional pre-trial errors); People v. Phillips, 169

Cal.App.3d 632, 639 (Cal.App.Ct. 1985) (same with respect to choice of counsel claims). 

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-02520-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/29/14 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

In fact, Petitioner indicates he is awaiting a disposition of his habeas petition in the state

supreme court. (See Pet. at 4.) Because the state courts provide Petitioner an

opportunity to raise his claims in state court, abstention is required. See 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.”)

FAILURE TO ALLEGE SUFFICIENT FACTUAL BASES FOR RELIEF

Furthermore, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases statesthat the

petition “shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . .

specified [in the petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. See also Boehme v.

Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas

proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual

allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Petitioner has violated Rule

2(c). Although Petitioner does not fail to state generalized constitutional grounds for

relief, he failsto provide specific factual allegations in support ofsuch grounds. Instead,

he refers to a previous federal petition filed in this Court in Case No. 14cv1644. This

Court dismissed that petition on September 4, 2014. (See Order filed Sept. 4, 2014 in

case No. 14cv1644 WQH (DHB) [ECF No. 16].) 

In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of

constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal

quotation marks omitted). Facts must be stated, in the petition, with sufficient detail to

enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further habeas

corpus review is warranted. Adams v. Armontrout, 897 F.2d 332, 334 (8th Cir. 1990). 

Moreover, the allegations presented in the petition should be sufficiently specific to

permit the respondent to assert appropriate objections and defenses. Harris v. Allen, 739

F. Supp. 564, 565 (W.D. Okla. 1989). The Court is not required to search through filings

in previously dismissed cases in order to determine whether sufficient facts exist to

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-02520-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/29/14 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

support the claim for relief raised in the instant petition. Cf. Harris v. Carter, 2009 WL

2253221 *12 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2009), as modified by 2009 WL 1763323 (W.D.

Wash. June 18, 2009) (citing Adams, 897 F.2d at 334). Here, the lack ofsupporting facts

in the Petition prevents the Respondent from being able to evaluate the claims,

appropriate objections and defenses.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis

is DENIED and 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), and because Petitioner

failed to allege sufficient factual basis for the grounds for relief raised in the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 29, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-02520-GPC-WVG Document 3 Filed 10/29/14 Page 4 of 4