Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03729/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03729-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Steven Alan Chase
Defendant
Donnell Earl Young
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNELL EARL YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN ALAN CHASE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-03729-WHO (PR) 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Donnell Earl Young asserts that his lawyer in pending state court 

proceedings is providing constitutionally inadequate representation and wants that lawyer 

removed. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere 

with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances (such as bad 

faith or harassment). Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Accordingly, 

Young’s lawsuit is DISMISSED. 

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In its review, the court must identify any 

Case 3:19-cv-03729-WHO Document 8 Filed 07/10/19 Page 1 of 4
2

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

Northern District of California

cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 

from such relief. See id. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed. 

See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988). 

A “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial 

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the 

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (quoting 

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Furthermore, a court “is not required to accept legal 

conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably 

be drawn from the facts alleged.” Clegg v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754–55 

(9th Cir. 1994). 

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege two essential 

elements: (1) that a right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was 

violated, and (2) that the alleged violation was committed by a person acting under the 

color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). 

B. Legal Claims 

Young is a state prisoner facing felony charges in San Mateo County. 

He alleges here that his public defender is providing constitutionally inadequate 

representation during the current state criminal proceedings. He asks that counsel be 

removed from defending him. He also alleges without elaboration that the prosecution was 

brought in “bad faith.” (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 12.) 

Abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate when (1) there is “an ongoing 

state judicial proceeding,” (2) those “proceedings implicate important state interests,” and 

(3) there is “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 

challenges.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 

(1982). All of the elements of Younger are present here. 

Case 3:19-cv-03729-WHO Document 8 Filed 07/10/19 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Young’s state court proceedings are ongoing, which satisfies the first Younger

requirement: a felony information was filed by the San Mateo District Attorney on March 

13, 2019 and Young was arraigned two days later. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 25, 31.) The 

second Younger element is also present: “a proper respect for state functions,” such as 

ongoing criminal proceedings, is an important issue of state interest. See Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). The third is as 

well: there is no reason Young cannot pursue his constitutional claims in state court. 

Any interference by this court in the state court proceedings would enjoin or have 

the practical effect of enjoining state proceedings, results disapproved of by Younger. 

SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Nothing in the 

complaint suggests there are extraordinary circumstances requiring such interference. For 

all of these reasons, Younger abstention is applicable. 

C. Parties 

Young lists as “parties” state court “judicial officials” and staff at Maguire 

Correctional Facility, but he states no claim against them. For example, he lists the 

Maguire Correctional Facility staff as parties but alleges no claims against them; rather, he 

seeks discovery from them. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) State judicial officials are also

listed as parties but no claims are alleged against them. Perhaps they too were included in 

the complaint for discovery purposes. And even if state judicial officials were proper 

parties, Young’s claim would still be dismissed on abstention grounds. Allowing any 

claims to proceed against them at this time would interfere with on-going state criminal 

proceedings. 

Young’s claims against the State Bar of California would also be dismissed even if 

the suit were not dismissed on abstention grounds because they are not related to his 

current claims regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. The State Bar, like the staff at 

Maguire Correctional Facility, is not involved in his state criminal proceedings. Moreover, 

the State Bar of California is immune from suit under section 1983. Hirsh v. Justices of 

the Supreme Court, 67 F.3d 708, 715 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Case 3:19-cv-03729-WHO Document 8 Filed 07/10/19 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

CONCLUSION

As a result, this federal civil rights action is DISMISSED. The Clerk shall enter 

judgment in favor of defendants and close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2019

_________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-03729-WHO Document 8 Filed 07/10/19 Page 4 of 4