Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02590/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02590-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DeFrantze Lucas Noel
Petitioner
Sacramento County Superior Court
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

 “§ 1382. Failure to file information or bring case to trial within time limit; dismissal 1

(a) The court, unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the action to be dismissed

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEFRANTZE LUCAS NOEL, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S- 07-2590 LEW GGH P

vs.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, an inmate at Sacramento County Main Jail, has filed a petition entitled

“petition for writ of mandamus....” Petitioner states that he is currently a defendant in a pending

state court criminal case, Case No. 07F08735. Petition, p. 4. Petitioner herein objects to the

state court’s ruling as to several of his motions in this on-going criminal action, rulings which he

has evidently attempted to appeal through the state supreme court. Petition, pp. 4-13. The

gravamen of the instant putative petition is petitioner’s request that this court issue a writ of

mandate directing the state court to grant his motion to dismiss the charges against petitioner

pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1382(a)(1) for failure to file an information within fifteen (15) 1

Case 2:07-cv-02590-LEW-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/19/07 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

in the following cases:

(1) When a person has been held to answer for a public offense and an information is not filed

against that person within 15 days.”

2

days after he was held to answer. Petition, p. 9. 

 This court must recommend summary dismissal of this petition. In the first place, 

petitioner’s request that this court to mandate that the state court grant, inter alia, his motion to

dismiss the pending state court criminal matter must be denied as frivolous because federal

courts lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to a state court “to compel a state court to

take or refrain from some action.” Demos v. United States Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Wash.,

925 F.2d 1160, 1161-1162 (9 Cir. 1991), citing 28 U.S.C. § 1651. th

Second, 

Supreme Court precedent tells us that comity is the main reason for

federal court restraint in the face of ongoing state judicial

proceedings, and another is to avoid unwarranted determinations of

federal constitutional law. For these reasons, federal courts should

almost never enjoin state criminal proceedings; federal courts

should also refrain from exercising jurisdiction in actions for

declaratory relief because declaratory relief has the same practical

impact as injunctive relief on a pending state proceeding as a result

of the preclusive effect of the federal court judgment....

Gilbertson v. Albright, 381, F.3d 965, 975 (9 Cir. 2004), citing, inter alia, Younger v. Harris, th

401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971). See also, H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000)

(quoting Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431,

 102 S.Ct. 2515 (1982))(“[i]n Younger, the Supreme Court “‘espouse[d] a strong federal policy

against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.’”)

Therefore, both for lack of jurisdiction and the principles articulated in Younger,

supra, this court must recommend denial of petitioner’s request that this court intervene in an ongoing state court criminal matter.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the “petition for writ of

mandamus” be summarily dismissed and this action be closed.

Case 2:07-cv-02590-LEW-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/19/07 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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is 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: 12/19/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

____________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

noel.fr

Case 2:07-cv-02590-LEW-GGH Document 5 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3