Jermond Christopher Davis v. The People of the State of California

Filing 4

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause, on or before November 3, 2016, why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the petition based on what is commonly called Younger abstention. (See Order for details.) (mp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

JERMOND CHRISTOPHER DAVIS, )
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
)
CALIFORNIA,
)
)
Respondent.

NO. CV 16-6861-JAK (AGR)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

16
17

For the reasons discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause,

18

on or before November 3, 2016, why the Court should not recommend dismissal

19

of the petition based on what is commonly called Younger abstention.

20

I.

21

SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS

22

On September 13, 2016, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

23

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is a pretrial county jail detainee awaiting

24

trial on aggravated assault charges pending in Los Angeles County Superior

25

Court case number BA444981. (Petition at 2.)

26

Petitioner lists the following grounds for relief: (1) arrest without a valid

27

warrant; (2) “no Miranda decision was issued”; and (3) malicious prosecution, in

28

1

that the prosecutor was “well aware” that Petitioner was arrested without a valid

2

warrant. (Petition at 5-6.)

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

“As an exercise of judicial restraint, . . . federal courts elect not to entertain

6

habeas corpus challenges to state court proceedings until habeas petitioners

7

have exhausted state avenues for raising [a] federal claim.” Carden v. Montana,

8

626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). “Only in cases of proven harassment or

9

prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a

10

valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where

11

irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state

12

prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971); see also

13

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971) (in general, federal court should not

14

interfere with ongoing state proceedings).

15

Abstention from interference with pending state judicial proceedings is

16

required if the proceedings are ongoing, implicate important state interests, and

17

afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions. Middlesex County

18

Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Here, all of

19

the prerequisites to Younger abstention have been met. Younger involved

20

criminal proceedings. The proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner’ claims here

21

involve California’s important interest in the order and integrity of its criminal

22

proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the States’ interest

23

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

24

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

25

considering equitable types of relief”). Finally, nothing prevents Petitioner from

26

raising his federal claims in state court, either at the trial level or at the appellate

27

level. Therefore, Younger abstention is appropriate.

28
2

1

Petitioner has not demonstrated any “special” or “extraordinary” circumstance

2

based upon which the Court should entertain the petition. Nor does any

3

exception to Younger apply. An exception requires Petitioner to show he would

4

suffer “irreparable harm” that is both “great and immediate” if the federal court

5

declines jurisdiction, that there is bad faith or harassment on the part of California

6

in prosecuting him, or that the state tribunal is biased against the federal claim.

7

See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 437; Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124-25 (1975);

8

Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Petitioner contends that the prosecution knows that

9

Petitioner was arrested without a valid warrant, but he does not support this

10

contention.

11

III.

12

ORDER

13

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, on or before November 3, 2016,

14

Petitioner shall show cause why the Court should not abstain from entertaining

15

the petition. If Petitioner does not timely respond to this Order to Show Cause,

16

the Court will recommend that the petition be dismissed without prejudice based

17

on abstention.

18
19

DATED: October 3, 2016

ALICIA G. ROSENBERG
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3