Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00840/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00840-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tammy L. Campbell
Respondent
David Jimenez
Petitioner

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

DAVID JIMENEZ.,

Petitioner,

v.

TAMMY L. CAMPBELL, Acting Warden,

Respondent.

No. 1:24-cv-00840-SKO (HC)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He is represented in this action by Aaron Spolin, Esq. On July 22, 2024, 

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court. Upon review of the petition, the 

Court finds it should abstain from interfering in ongoing state proceedings pursuant to Younger v. 

Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and will recommend the petition be dismissed without prejudice. 

I. DISCUSSION

A. Preliminary Review of Petition

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 

petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 

entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 

Case 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 07/24/24 Page 1 of 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

2

habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 

dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir.

2001).

B. Abstention

Petitioner was convicted in the Madera County Superior Court on December 23, 2020, of 

numerous sex offenses involving a minor under the age of 10. He was sentenced on January 25, 

2021, to a term of 90 years to life. He appealed to the California Court of Appeals. On 

November 30, 2022, the appellate court affirmed the judgment but remanded the matter for 

resentencing. On September 19, 2023, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

unrelated to sentencing in the California Supreme Court, and the petition was denied on January 

17, 2024. From the petition, it appears Petitioner’s resentencing is ongoing.

It is premature for this Court to review Petitioner’s collateral attack on his conviction 

because direct review is still ongoing and there is no final judgment. A federal court’s jurisdiction 

to review the merits of a habeas petition commences, in pertinent part, on “the date on which the 

judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A).

Under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not enjoin pending state 

criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 49, 53. Younger abstention 

prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction when three criteria are met: 1) there are ongoing 

state judicial proceedings; 2) an important state interest is involved; and 3) there is an adequate 

opportunity to raise the federal question at issue in the state proceedings. H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. 

Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000).

The Younger criteria are satisfied here. First, according to the petition, remand for

Petitioner’s resentencing is still pending, and thus, judgment is not final. The Supreme Court has 

stated: “‘Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.’” 

Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 156 (2007) (quoting Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 

(1937)). Second, resentencing proceedings implicate an important state interest in enforcing 

criminal laws without federal interference. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he 

States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one 

Case 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 07/24/24 Page 2 of 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

3

of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable 

types of relief”) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). Finally, the California state courts provide 

an adequate forum in which Petitioner may pursue his claims. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 

481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (“[A] federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an 

adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.”). When the state 

proceedings have fully concluded and his conviction becomes final, Petitioner may seek federal 

habeas relief. See, e.g., Fellows v. Matteson, 2020 WL 4805022 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) 

(prisoner “may seek federal habeas relief after his California state criminal proceedings, including 

his pending SB 620 motion in the California Court of Appeal, have concluded with a final 

judgment of conviction.”). For these reasons, the Court does not find that extraordinary 

circumstances warrant intervention.

The Court further notes that “courts in the Ninth Circuit have abstained under Younger

when a habeas petitioner's state resentencing appeal is pending.” Duke v. Gastelo, 2020 WL 

4341595, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2020), adopted, 2020 WL 4339889 (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2020); 

Vanhook v. Burton, 2020 WL 5203439 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2020) (recommending denial of 

motion for stay and dismissal of federal habeas petition due to pending state appeal for 

resentencing); adopted, 2020 WL 5943013 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020); Sauceda v. Sherman, 2020 

WL 2510639, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020) (recommending dismissal of a federal habeas 

petition due to pending state appeal for resentencing under Cal. P.C. § 1170.95), adopted, 2020 

WL 1433678 (C.D. Cal. March 22, 2020); Phillips v. Neuschmid, 2019 WL 6312573, at *3 (C.D. 

Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (“courts implicitly find that granting federal habeas corpus relief would have 

the practical effect of enjoining or interfering with the ongoing state judicial proceeding, even 

where the state proceeding is limited to sentencing;” recommending dismissal of habeas petition 

due to pending state appeal for resentencing); adopted, 2019 WL 6310269 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 

2019) (collecting cases).

II. RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS the petition be DISMISSED 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.

Case 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 07/24/24 Page 3 of 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

4

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned District Court Judge, 

pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 

Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within twenty-one 

(21) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may file written 

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

Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s 

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 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). This recommendation is not an order that is immediately 

appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's 

judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00840-KES-SKO Document 4 Filed 07/24/24 Page 4 of 4