Dijante Lee Johnson v. Fresno County Superior Court House
Filing
4
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the Petition be Dismissed without prejudice as premature re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Dijante Johnson ; referred to Judge O'Neill; new case number is 1:17-cv-1668 LJO-JLT (HC),signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/16/17. Objections to F&R due by 1/11/2018 (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DIJANTE LEE JOHNSON,
12
Petitioner,
13
14
No. 1:17-cv-01668-JLT (HC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE
v.
FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,
15
Respondent.
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION
[TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION
DEADLINE]
17
Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court on December 12, 2017. He is currently
18
19
detained at the Fresno County Jail being tried for first degree murder. The Court finds the
20
petition to be premature and will recommend the petition be DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION
21
22
23
A.
Preliminary Review of Petition
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a
24
petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not
25
entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
26
The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of
27
habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to
28
dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th
1
1
Cir.2001).
2
B.
3
4
5
Younger Abstention
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. He states the criminal
process is ongoing in Case No. 12-56603. He raises a number of claims concerning his trial.
Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with
6
ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under
7
special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is
8
required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings
9
involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to
10
raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457
11
U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994).
12
The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state
13
appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is
14
permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention
15
decision, state court proceedings still considered pending).
16
The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain
17
from review of a claim. In order to be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have
18
exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on
19
comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's
20
alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The
21
exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair
22
opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404
23
U.S. 270, 276 (1971)
24
In the instant case, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important
25
interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296
26
F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.
27
2003). Finally, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court are adequate
28
forums for Petitioner to seek relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore,
2
1
the Court recommends that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Younger.
2
3
4
5
RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as premature.
This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge
6
assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304
7
of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.
8
Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with
9
the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and
10
Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28
11
U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to
12
appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
December 16, 2017
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?