(HC) Barnes v. California Department Corrections Director

Filing 9

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Assign Case to District Judge; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Court Abstain From Exercising Jurisdiction and Dismiss the Case Without Prejudice re 1 signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 6/23/2020. Referred to Unassigned DJ. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE BARNES,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Petitioner,
v.
HANFORD SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
ROBERTS,
Respondent.

Case No. 1:20-cv-00836-JDP
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT COURT ABSTAIN FROM
EXERCISING JURISDICTION AND
DISMISS THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS
ECF No. 1
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19

Petitioner Antoine Barnes, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review under Rule

21

4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a

22

habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v.

23

Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th

24

Cir. 1998). Courts have “an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas

25

petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).

26

Because petitioner is currently seeking state habeas relief on the claims raised in his federal

27
28
1

1

petition, we recommend that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction and dismiss the petition

2

without prejudice.

3

Discussion

4

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court

5

generally cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. This holding, commonly

6

referred to as the Younger abstention doctrine, is based on the principle of federal-state comity.

7

See id. In the habeas context, “[w]here . . . no final judgment has been entered in state court, the

8

state court proceeding is plainly ongoing for purposes of Younger.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898,

9

902 (9th Cir. 2019). Absent rare circumstances, a district court must dismiss such actions. See

10

Cook v. Harding, 190 F. Supp. 3d 921, 935, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir.

11

2018); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (“Only in cases of proven harassment or

12

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

13

conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be

14

shown” is federal intervention in an on-going state proceeding appropriate.).

15

Here, petitioner claims that the state superior court violated his constitutional rights when

16

it failed to award him certain custody credits under California law. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Petitioner

17

is currently seeking habeas relief before the state superior court on these same claims.1 Id. at 5;

18

In re: Application of: Antoine D Barnes for Writ of Habeas Corpus, No. 20W-0072A (Kings

19

Cnty. Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2020). Because his state habeas petition is still pending, this court

20

should refrain from intervening in this case.

21

Certificate of Appealability

22
23

A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district
court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253;

24
1

25
26
27

Petitioner also recently sought habeas relief in this court on the same claims raised here. See
Barnes v. Roberts, No. 1:20-cv-00454-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2020). Because that
petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust, the instant petition is not
considered “second or successive” for our purposes. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487
(2000). However, petitioner is directed to refrain from filing any additional habeas petitions with
this court until his claim has been exhausted in the state courts.

28
2

1

Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a

2

district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a

3

petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th

4

Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial

5

showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires

6

the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of

7

his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to

8

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v.

9

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

10

denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court not issue a certificate of

11

appealability.

12

Order

13

The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of

14

reviewing these findings and recommendations.

15

Findings and Recommendations

16

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction

17

under the Younger abstention doctrine, dismiss the case without prejudice to refiling once

18

petitioner has exhausted his claims before the state courts, and decline to issue a certificate of

19

appealability. ECF No. 1. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district

20

judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within

21

fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

22

objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties.

23

That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

24

Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and

25

recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

26
27
28
3

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
Dated:
4

June 23, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5
6

No. 206.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4