Travis R. Thompson v. State of California et al

Filing 14

ORDER Denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/2/14. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

TRAVIS RAY THOMPSON,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:14-cv-01240-AWI-SMS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

13

Defendants.

(Doc. 12)

14
15

Plaintiff Travis Ray Thompson, an inmate at California State Prison, Corcoran, brought this

16
17
18

Section 1983 action against Defendants State of California; California Correctional Police Officers
Association; Greg Strickland, Kings County District Attorney; Javier Navarette, Deputy Kings

19

County District Attorney; Kings County Superior Court; and the Fifth District Court of Appeals. See

20

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff sought an injunction against the trial of pending criminal charges against

21

him including assault with a deadly weapon, battery on non-confined persons while serving a life

22

sentence, possession of a weapon in prison, and delaying a peace officer in performance of his duties

23
in violation of California Penal Code §§ 4500, 4501, 4501.5, and 4502(a) and (b). On November 3,
24
25
26

2014, the Court concluded that Plaintiff's claims were not ripe and dismissed the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

27

Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration, contending that the Court failed to consider

28

Schiavone Construction Co. v. New York City Transit Authority, 593 F.Supp. 1257, 1258 (S.D.N.Y.

1

1984),1 which Plaintiff contends clearly grants the Court jurisdiction to enjoin politically motivated

2

criminal proceedings such as the prosecution of Plaintiff. Schiavone is distinguishable. The

3

plaintiffs in Schiavone sought an injunction against state grand jury proceedings that were allegedly

4

duplicative of two prior federal investigations of the plaintiffs. As a result, the defense did not argue

5

that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), barred the court's

6

interference in the state proceedings. See Schiavone, 593 F.Supp. at 1260 n. 9. In this case, Plaintiff

7
has already been indicted for the crimes charged by the State of California.
8
Further, the Schiavone plaintiffs fully alleged facts from which the district court could

9
10

perform its legal analysis. Plaintiff's complaint alleged no facts, setting forth only Plaintiff's

11

speculation that the case against him was politically motivated. In the absence of supporting factual

12

allegations, Plaintiff's claims were not ripe for consideration, and the Court lacked jurisdiction to

13

review them. See Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 922 F.2d 498, 502 (9th Cir.

14

1990) ("If a claim is unripe, federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction and the complaint must be

15
16

dismissed").
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: December 2, 2014
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff did not include a citation for Schiavone. In the absence of any other similarly named case and in view of the
case's subject matter, the Court infers that this is the case to which Plaintiff referred.