Williams v. Fresno County Superior Court

Filing 4

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATION to Dismiss Premature 1 Petition signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/16/17. This case has been assigned to District Judge Dale A. Drozd and Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston. The new case no. is: 1:17-cv-01672-DAD-JLT. Referred to Judge Drozd. Objections to F&R Due Within Twenty-One Days. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE WILLIAMS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01672-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
18

Petitioner filed a habeas petition in this Court on December 13, 2017. He is currently

19

detained at the Fresno County Jail on charges of felony evading, possession of a firearm by a

20

felon, unlawful possession of ammunition, and obstruction of justice. He states criminal

21

proceedings are ongoing. The Court finds the petition to be premature and will recommend the

22

petition be DISMISSED.
DISCUSSION

23
24
25

A.

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

26

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

27

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

28

The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of
1

1

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

2

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

3

Cir.2001).

4

B.

5

Younger Abstention
Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. He states the criminal

6

process is ongoing in Case No. F17902918. He raises a number of claims challenging the

7

charged filed against him.

8

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

9

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under

10

special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is

11

required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings

12

involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to

13

raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457

14

U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994).

15

The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state

16

appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is

17

permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention

18

decision, state court proceedings still considered pending).

19

The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain

20

from review of a claim. In order to be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have

21

exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on

22

comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's

23

alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The

24

exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair

25

opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404

26

U.S. 270, 276 (1971)

27
28

In the instant case, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important
interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296
2

1

F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.

2

2003). Finally, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court are adequate

3

forums for Petitioner to seek relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore,

4

the Court recommends that the petition be dismissed pursuant to Younger.

5
6
7
8

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

9

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304

10

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

11

Within twenty-one days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

12

the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

13

Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

14

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

15

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 16, 2017

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3