Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01937/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01937-0/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

JEFFREY LEE MOURNING, Civil No. 13cv1937-BTM (WVG)

Petitioner,

ORDER DISMISSING CASE 

v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

SHERIFF WILLIAM GORE, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a person detained at the San Diego City Jail awaiting trial on state criminal

charges, is proceeding pro se with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. Petitioner seeks injunctive relief from this Court to assist him in protecting his right to

the choice of counsel in his state criminal proceedings, and complaining ofineffective assistance

of appointed counsel in his pre-trial and pre-preliminary hearing proceedings. (See Pet. at 1, 6-

9.)

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

consideration of the 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) (stating that Younger “espouse[d]

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

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1937-Dismiss.wpd, 82613 -1- 13cv1937

Case 3:13-cv-01937-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 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

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).

Absent extraordinarycircumstances, abstention under Younger isrequiredwhen:(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 issues. 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, he admits that he is

awaiting jury trial on criminal charges in San Diego County Superior Court, and in fact has not

yet had a preliminary hearing. (See Pet. at 2-8.) Thus, 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. 

Petitioner attempts to show that he has not been afforded an adequate opportunity to raise

the federal issues in the state courts. He contends the appellate division of the superior court has

refused to accept his filings. (Pet. at 4-5.) Petitioner has not, however, indicated an inability to

petition the state appellate or supreme court to address his claims, which consist primarily of

allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and the denial of the right to choice of counsel,

or an inability to seek review in the appellate division of the superior court after his preliminary

hearing has taken place. 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). In addition, the state courts provide an

opportunity to raise these claims on direct appeal; abstention is therefore 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.”)

/ / /

/ / /

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1937-Dismiss.wpd, 82613 -2- 13cv1937

Case 3:13-cv-01937-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 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

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. See Juidice

v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may not 

retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 26, 2013

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\BTM\13cv1937-Dismiss.wpd, 82613 -3- 13cv1937

Case 3:13-cv-01937-BTM-WVG Document 2 Filed 08/26/13 Page 3 of 3