Javier Pellecer v. Jim McDonnell

Filing 4

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym: Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be Dismissed Based on Younger Abstention Principles. Petitioner is ordered to respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before February 22, 2016 (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Dismissal) (kca)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-337-JLS (SP)

Title

JAVIER PELLECER v. JIM McDONNELL, Sheriff

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 22, 2016

Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Kimberly I. Carter

n/a

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Petitioner:

Attorneys Present for Respondent:

n/a

n/a

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be
Dismissed Based on Younger Abstention Principles

Petitioner Javier Pellecer, a pretrial inmate at the Men’s Central Jail in Los
Angeles proceeding pro se, filed a federal habeas petition in this court on January 15,
2016 (“Petition”). Petitioner raises four grounds for relief, all arising out of his
contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained
as a result of his warrantless arrest. Petitioner contends he will not be able to have a fair
and impartial trial because his suppression motion was denied.
This is not petitioner’s first attempt to challenge his warrantless arrest in this
court. On July 31, 2014, petitioner filed a civil rights complaint in this court in case
number CV 14-4959-JLS (SP). In that case, petitioner alleged his constitutional rights
were violated when he was unlawfully arrested without a warrant on two occasions, for
which he was then – and apparently still remains – in pretrial custody, pending trial in
case number BA417246. This court dismissed petitioner’s claims for equitable relief in
that civil rights case, and stayed his claims for damages until the state criminal case is no
longer pending, all under the Younger abstention doctrine. A similar outcome appears
warranted with respect to the instant Petition for federal habeas relief.
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), the
Supreme Court held that a federal court was prohibited from enjoining a state criminal
proceeding without a valid showing of “extraordinary circumstances” that warrant
federal intervention. Id. at 43-54. Younger abstention principles apply to federal habeas
proceedings. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-03 (9th Cir. 2012) (upholding
dismissal of habeas petition seeking to raise speedy trial claim pretrial). Indeed, “federal
habeas corpus does not lie, absent ‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-337-JLS (SP)

Date

Title

January 22, 2016

JAVIER PELLECER v. JIM McDONNELL, Sheriff

affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction by a state
court.” Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 489, 93 S. Ct. 1123, 35 L. Ed.
2d 443 (1973) (citation omitted).
Under the Younger Abstention Doctrine, federal courts may not stay or enjoin
pending state criminal court proceedings, nor grant monetary damages for constitutional
violations arising from them. Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986).
Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state court proceedings are ongoing; (2)
the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings provide
an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. Middlesex County Ethics
Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116
(1982); Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Petition makes clear that the case in which petitioner’s suppression motion
was denied is still pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. This court must
abstain from interfering in the those state criminal proceedings. Petitioner’s claims in
the instant Petition would necessarily implicate his pending criminal case, involving
important state interests. Further, since the Petition makes plain that petitioner’s
suppression motion was heard and decided by the trial court, and that petitioner also
raised the matter before the state appellate courts, petitioner has had – and, if convicted,
will have further – opportunity to raise his claims with respect to the suppression motion
in the state courts. Therefore, it appears this case should be dismissed based on Younger
abstention principles.
Accordingly, the court hereby issues this ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the
Petition should not be dismissed under the Younger Abstention Doctrine. Petitioner is
ordered to respond to this Order to Show Cause on or before February 22, 2016.
Alternative, petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this action without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). A Notice of Dismissal
form is attached for petitioner’s convenience. If petitioner wishes to dismiss this
action without prejudice, he should submit the voluntary dismissal form by February
22, 2016.
Petitioner is cautioned that failure to respond to this Order to Show Cause as set
forth above will result in a recommendation or order of the court dismissing this case.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2