Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01182/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01182-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Olagues
Plaintiff
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Defendant

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN OLAGUES,

Plaintiff, CIV S-07-1182 LKK KJM PS

v.

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,

Defendant. ORDER AND

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

This action was transferred from the Eastern District of Louisiana on June 18,

2007 and referred to the undersigned based on Local Rule 72-302(c)(21). On November 9, 2007,

the undersigned filed findings and recommendations recommending that the case be dismissed;

because of plaintiff’s failure to timely serve summons and to appear at the status conference, it

appeared he had abandoned the litigation. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and

recommendations, contending that defendant has been served and that this court was without

jurisdiction to order a status conference because the matter was on appeal. Plaintiff concedes the

appeal has now been dismissed and this court has jurisdiction.

Review of the docket indicates no proper proof of service of summons on

defendant has been filed. The “proof of service” referenced by plaintiff indicates only that the

Case 2:07-cv-01182-LKK -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/11/07 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

Marshal sent a notice and acknowledgment of receipt of summons and complaint to defendant

(E.D. La. docket no. 9). No waiver of service, however, has been filed. There is no indication in

the file that plaintiff has complied with the requirements of Rule 4 for service of process. See

Letter filed November 2, 2007 (E.D. Cal. docket no. 5). This case therefore may properly be

dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Setting aside the problem with service of summons, it appears this court should

abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, a federal court should

abstain from adjudicating a lawsuit if (1) there are pending state judicial proceedings, (2) the

state proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) the state proceedings provide an

adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden

State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). In this action, plaintiff seeks an injunction against the

Governor of California from proceeding with extradition proceedings because of plaintiff’s

alleged status as a fugitive, charged with violation of a custody decree. See Governor’s

Requisition, attached as exhibit to complaint (E.D. La. docket no. 1). Thus, there are ongoing

criminal proceedings that implicate the strongest of state interests, namely enforcement of

custody decrees and criminal prosecution for violations thereof. In the complaint, plaintiff’s

challenge to the extradition proceedings rests on his claim that even extradition requisition was

fraudulently obtained. To the extent such a claim raises a federal question, plaintiff will have

ample opportunity to raise any constitutional claims in the state proceedings. See Juidice v. Vail,

430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (plaintiff need be accorded only an opportunity to fairly pursue

constitutional claims in the ongoing state proceedings). This court therefore should abstain from

hearing plaintiff’s claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the November 9, 2007 findings and

recommendations are vacated; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed.

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01182-LKK -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/11/07 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

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 ten 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 Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten 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: December 10, 2007. 

006

olagues2.57

Case 2:07-cv-01182-LKK -KJM Document 9 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3