Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03044/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-03044-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Fermin Perez-Robles
Petitioner
Glen Pratt
Respondent

Document Text:

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 

FERMIN PEREZ-ROBLES, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GLEN PRATT, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:23-cv-03044 DJC SCR P 

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) The petition was filed on December 29, 2023, and 

petitioner noted therein he was still awaiting resentencing by the superior court on the convictions 

at issue, as ordered by the state appellate court on appeal. (Id. at 4.) The petition asserts the 

resentencing will not affect the convictions or the federal constitutional arguments presented in 

the petition. (Id.) 

Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, arguing the court should abstain from 

proceeding under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). (ECF No. 10.) Petitioner did not 

oppose the motion to dismiss, stating “[p]etitioner has no objection to respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, provided that the dismissal is without prejudice to timely refiling of the Petition after the 

state resentencing proceedings are complete.” (ECF No. 12 at 1.) 

Case 2:23-cv-03044-DJC-SCR Document 14 Filed 10/02/24 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 

Principles of comity and federalism weigh against a federal court interfering with ongoing 

state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 

circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at43-54. Younger abstention is required when (1) state 

proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) state proceedings involve important state 

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

issue. See Fresh Int’l Corp. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd., 805 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 

1986); Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 

 The first prong of Younger is met because petitioner was awaiting resentencing in state 

court when he filed the present petition. The pendency of the state proceedings is determined at 

the time the federal petition is filed. See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1988). 

In addition, the second prong of Younger is met because an important state interest is implicated 

in petitioner’s criminal resentencing proceeding. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). 

However, the third part of Younger’s test is not satisfied. See Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 

1088, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2023). “Properly framed, the third requirement for Younger abstention 

asks whether there remains an opportunity to litigate the federal claim in a state-court proceeding 

at the time the federal court is considering whether to abstain.” Id. at 1096. 

Respondent does not argue an opportunity to litigate any of the federal claims remains in 

state court. To the contrary, it appears the resentencing will not affect petitioner’s convictions or 

the federal constitutional arguments presented, as alleged in the petition. Because respondent fails 

to show the requirements for Younger abstention are met, the undersigned recommends denying 

the motion to dismiss and proceeding to the merits of the petition notwithstanding petitioner’s 

indicated non-opposition.1

1

 If requiring petitioner to proceed on his constitutional claims at this time could result in hardship 

or inequity to petitioner, then petitioner, who is represented by counsel, can request a stay under 

the court’s discretionary power to stay these proceedings. See Duke, 64 F.4th 1099 (concluding 

that denial of a requested stay “unnecessarily created a significant risk that Duke would lose his 

one chance for federal review of his constitutional claims.”); Landis v. North American Co., 299 

U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every 

court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). 

Case 2:23-cv-03044-DJC-SCR Document 14 Filed 10/02/24 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 

In accordance with the above, IT IS RECOMMENDED as follows: 

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 10) be denied. 

2. Respondent be ordered to file an answer to the habeas petition within sixty days from 

the date of any order adopting these findings and recommendations. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

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

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

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 

parties are 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: October 2, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-03044-DJC-SCR Document 14 Filed 10/02/24 Page 3 of 3