(HC) Scott v. Bird

Filing 22

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 06/04/24 RECOMMENDING that the 15 Motion to Dismiss be granted and the Petition be dismissed. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&Rs due within 14 days. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS CHARLES SCOTT,

12

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

LANDON BIRD,

Case No. 2:23-cv-00936-DAD-JDP (HC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
THAT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
DISMISS BE GRANTED
ECF No. 15

15

Respondent.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS

16
17
18

Petitioner Thomas Charles Scott, a state prisoner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas

19

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his state conviction. Respondent has moved to

20

dismiss the petition under the Younger1 abstention doctrine because petitioner’s conviction is not

21

yet final. I recommend that respondent’s motion be granted.

22

No habeas rule specifically applies to motions to dismiss. See Hillery v. Pulley, 533 F.

23

Supp. 1189, 1194 (E.D. Cal. 1982) (“Motion practice in habeas corpus is not specifically

24

provided for in the rules but must be inferred from their structure and the Advisory Committee

25

Notes.”). The Ninth Circuit construes a motion to dismiss a habeas petition as a request for the

26

court to dismiss under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, however. See O’Bremski v.

27
28

1

Found in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
1

1

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1991). Under Rule 4, I evaluate whether it “plainly appears”

2

that the petitioner is not entitled to relief and, if so, recommend dismissal of the petition.
Respondent argues that, at the time this petition was filed, petitioner’s conviction was not

3
4

yet final because state proceedings weighing reclassification of his convictions for possession and

5

cultivation of marijuana were only resolved on February 21, 2024, several months after this case

6

was filed in May 2023. ECF Nos. 1 & 21. Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court

7

must abstain from interfering with state court proceedings if: (1) the proceedings are ongoing;

8

(2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; (3) the claimant has an opportunity to raise

9

his constitutional challenges in the state proceedings; and (4) the relief he seeks in federal court

10

would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceedings. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882

11

F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, petitioner concedes that some of his convictions were not

12

yet final when he brought this action, but argues that this action should nevertheless proceed

13

since, as of today’s date, all court proceedings have concluded. ECF No. 21. The Ninth Circuit

14

has held, however, that dismissal is required if state proceedings were ongoing at the time the

15

federal action was filed. See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988) (“In other

16

words, Younger abstention requires that the federal courts abstain when state court proceedings

17

were ongoing at the time the federal action was filed.”). Thus, dismissal and, if petitioner so

18

chooses, refiling is required. The Beltran court held:

19

Although the state court proceedings were completed by the time
the district court granted summary judgment, and an abstention
order in this case may result simply in the appellees refiling their
federal complaint, this outcome is required by Younger. Where
Younger abstention is appropriate, a district court cannot refuse to
abstain, retain jurisdiction over the action, and render a decision on
the merits after the state proceedings have ended. To the contrary,
Younger abstention requires dismissal of the federal action.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Id.
Accordingly, I recommend that respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, be
GRANTED and the petition be DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling.

27

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

28

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
2

1

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

2

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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

4

objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

5

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

6

appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez

7

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

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated:

June 4, 2024
JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3