(HC) James v State of CA Attorney General et al

Filing 3

ORDER, FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/17/2023 ORDERING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner's #1 application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice, and this court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 2253. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 21 days. (Yin, K)

Case 2:23-cv-00037-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/17/23 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RONALD EUGENE JAMES,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

No. 2:23-cv-0037 AC P

v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY
GENERAL,

ORDER AND FINDINGS &
RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas

18
19

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
I.

20

Petition
The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas

21
22

Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas

23

Rule 1(b). Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition

24

“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled

25

to relief in the district court.” “[A] petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without

26

leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave

27

granted.” Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (citations omitted).

28

////
1

Case 2:23-cv-00037-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/17/23 Page 2 of 3
1

Petitioner challenges his confinement on the grounds that the evidence submitted at the

2

preliminary hearing was insufficient evidence to charge him and the prosecutor knowingly used

3

perjured testimony during the preliminary hearing. ECF No. 1 at 3-12.

4

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition

5

brought by a pretrial detainee. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003)

6

(citations omitted). Under § 2241(c)(3), a pretrial detainee may seek a writ of habeas corpus

7

when “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

8

However, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with a

9

pending state criminal case. “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in

10

overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of

11

Com. Pol. Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations

12

and footnote omitted).

13

We must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a
state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates
important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from
litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4)
the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the
practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state
proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.

14
15
16
17

Id. at 1092 (citations omitted). “Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken

18

by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other

19

extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief

20

against pending state prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).

21

In the instant case, the court finds that all four requirements for exercising Younger

22

abstention are met. The state-initiated criminal proceeding against petitioner is still ongoing; the

23

proceeding implicates important state interests; to the extent petitioner may have federal

24

constitutional challenges, he is not barred from raising them in the state criminal proceeding; and

25

this court’s failure to abstain would directly interfere with the state proceeding. Furthermore,

26

petitioner has not alleged any facts demonstrating that his prosecution is the product of bad faith

27

or that other extraordinary circumstances warrant intervention. Accordingly, the court should

28

////
2

Case 2:23-cv-00037-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/17/23 Page 3 of 3
1

abstain from considering petitioner’s claims and dismiss them.1

2
3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall randomly
assign a United States District Judge to this action.

4

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

5

1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice.

6

2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 2253.

8
9

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days

10

after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

11

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

12

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” If petitioner files objections,

13

he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to

14

which issues. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections

15

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v.

16

Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

17

DATED: January 17, 2023

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The court notes that this is petitioner’s second attempt to challenge the ongoing state
prosecution at issue in this case. See James v. People of the State of California, No. 2:21-cv-1005
TLN DMC (E.D. Cal.). Petitioner’s previous petition sought relief on numerous grounds,
including those articulated in the instant petition, and was dismissed on the ground that abstention
under Younger was required.
3