(HC) Bennett v. Yolo County Superior Court

Filing 10

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 8/29/2024 GRANTING 3 , 4 Motions to Proceed IFP, and RECOMMENDING petitioner's 1 Application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice based on the Younger abstention doctrine, petitioner's request to recharacterize the present habeas corpus petition as a civil rights action be denied, and all pending motions, including the 9 Motion for Injunctive Relief be denied as moot. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations. (Woodson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID BENNETT,

12

No. 2:23-cv-02885-TLN-CKD

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

ORDER AND

YOLO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state pretrial detainee confined at Atascadero State Hospital, is proceeding

17
18

pro se, in this habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 Also pending before the

19

court are petitioner’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis and a motion for injunctive relief.

20

ECF Nos. 3, 4 9.
Examination of the in forma pauperis affidavit reveals that petitioner is unable to afford

21
22

the costs of this action. ECF No. 4 at 1-2. Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is

23

granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27
28

1

After filing the habeas application, petitioner was transferred to the Monroe Detention Center in
Woodland, California and then to Patton State Hospital where he is presently confined.
1

1

I.

Factual and Procedural Background

2

Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in state custody who is challenging three felony charges

3

stemming from events that occurred on February 15, 2023. 2 At an unspecified point during his

4

state court proceedings, a doubt was declared about petitioner’s competency and a psychiatric

5

evaluation was ordered. As a result, petitioner was transferred to the Department of State

6

Hospitals for further evaluation and mental health treatment. In his § 2254 application, petitioner

7

asserts that he was sentenced to serve two years on March 27, 2023. ECF No. 1 at 1. However,

8

Yolo County Superior Court records indicate that a trial has yet to be conducted based on

9

petitioner’s ongoing mental health treatment. 3

10

Petitioner raises four claims for relief in his § 2254 petition. First, he asserts that the state

11

court denied him federal benefits and discriminated and retaliated against him by using California

12

Penal Code §§ 1367-1370 as punishment when he tried to refuse medication. ECF No. 1 at 5. In

13

claim two, petitioner asserts that the state court violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of

14

1990. ECF No. 1 at 7. Next, petitioner raises a First Amendment violation asserting that he was

15

denied access to the courts. ECF No. 1 at 8. Lastly, petitioner asserts that his Fourteenth

16

Amendment rights were violated because the state court acted with deliberate indifference to his

17

serious medical needs. Id. at 10. His last claim for relief also alleges that excessive force was

18

used against him on an unspecified date. Id.
Petitioner acknowledges that he has not properly exhausted these claims in state court.

19
20

ECF No. 1 at 12. However, he submits that the exhaustion of state court remedies should be

21

excused in his case because he is incompetent to stand trial or to represent himself under

22

California Penal Code § 1370.
The habeas petition requests various forms of relief including: 1) a declaratory judgment;

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Petitioner asserts that he was charged with escape or attempted escape from jail and two counts
of resisting an executive officer by means of threats, force, or violence.
3
This court takes judicial notice of the online docket of the Yolo County Superior Court pursuant
to Rule 201(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. People v. Bennett, Case Number CR20230488 (Yolo County Superior Court), available at https://tinyurl.com/3pt34d4v. The court may
properly take judicial notice of state court dockets, including those found on the internet. Porter
v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 (9th Cir. 2010) (footnote and citations omitted).
2

1

2) injunctive relief; 3) the appointment of counsel or a guardian ad litem; 4) compensatory and

2

punitive damages; 5) the termination of the pending criminal case against him; and, 6) a stay of

3

proceedings in order to exhaust his state court remedies. 4 ECF No. 1 at 15, 26.

4

II.

Legal Standards

5

Federal courts cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent

6

extraordinary circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401

7

U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). Abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are

8

pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings

9

afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issues. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v.

10

Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23

11

F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331–32 (9th Cir. 1992). If all

12

three of these factors are met, the federal court must abstain from ruling on the issues and dismiss

13

the federal action without prejudice, unless there are extraordinary or special circumstances which

14

pose an immediate threat of irreparable injury. See Kenneally, 967 F.2d at 331; Perez v.

15

Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (limiting “extraordinary circumstances” to those cases

16

involving harassment by state officials, prosecutions undertaken “in bad faith that have no hope

17

of obtaining a valid conviction,” or where “irreparable injury can be shown.”).
“The Younger doctrine was borne of the concern that federal court injunctions might

18
19

unduly hamper a state in its prosecution of criminal laws.” Miofsky v. Superior Court, 703 F.2d

20

332, 336 (9th Cir. 1983). In practical terms, the Younger doctrine means that “‘only in the most

21

unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or

22

habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case

23

concluded in the state courts.’” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.) (quoting Drury

24

v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)).

25

III.

26

As an initial matter, the court construes petitioner’s habeas application as one filed

27
28

4

Analysis

Petitioner also requests that this court convert his habeas petition into a civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 1 at 21.
3

1

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 which is the proper procedural vehicle for challenging pretrial

2

confinement in the absence of a final state court judgment. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d

3

822, 824 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2003).

4

Furthermore, under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which are equally

5

applicable to § 2241 petitions 5, the court must review all petitions for writ of habeas corpus and

6

summarily dismiss any petition if it is plain that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The court

7

has conducted that review and recommends summarily dismissing petitioner’s habeas corpus

8

application because federal court intervention is not warranted in light of the ongoing state

9

criminal proceedings.

10

In this case, the court concludes that abstention pursuant to Younger is warranted. First, it

11

is apparent from the face of the petition that state criminal proceedings were ongoing when the

12

habeas petition was filed. See Beltran v. State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988).

13

Secondly, the ongoing state proceedings involve an important state interest since they concern the

14

application of criminal law. Lastly, the ongoing state proceedings provide petitioner the

15

opportunity to challenge the legal sufficiency of the criminal charges against him. Moreover, the

16

allegations in the habeas petition do not demonstrate that this is an extraordinary case justifying

17

an exception to the Younger abstention rule. Petitioner does not explain any irreparable injury to

18

his criminal case that will occur if this court does not review his § 2241 petition on the merits, nor

19

is any apparent from the face of the petition. All of his allegations of harm are focused on his

20

conditions of confinement which are not reviewable in a habeas corpus action. For all these

21

reasons, the undersigned recommends that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be

22

summarily dismissed without prejudice based on the Younger abstention doctrine.

23

Furthermore, even assuming that Younger abstention does not apply, petitioner’s claims

24

do not sound in habeas because they do not affect the fact or duration of his confinement. See

25

Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (finding that conditions of

26

confinement claims generally must be raised in an action for violation of civil rights under 42

27
28

5

Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district
court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions.
4

1

U.S.C. §1983, not a petition for writ of habeas corpus). Petitioner acknowledges this when he

2

requests that this habeas petition be converted into a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

3

1983. See ECF No. 1 at 21. Thus, his challenges do not fall within the “core of habeas” and

4

should be summarily dismissed on that alternative basis.

5

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that Younger abstention does not apply

6

when a state pretrial detainee is challenging a trial court’s order requiring involuntary medication

7

to restore his competency to stand trial for murder. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir.

8

2021). However, in this case, petitioner is not directly challenging the order requiring his

9

involuntary medication. Rather, he is challenging the initiation of criminal charges against him in

10

the first place. As a result, the undersigned finds that the exception to Younger outlined in Bean

11

does not apply to petitioner’s case.
Lastly, to the extent that petitioner requests that his habeas petition be converted into a

12
13

civil rights action, the undersigned recommends denying this request in the exercise of the court’s

14

discretion. 6 At the present time, petitioner has five open civil rights actions pending in this

15

judicial district. See Bennett v. Monroe Detention Center, et al., No. 2:22-cv-02157-SCR (E.D

16

Cal.); Bennett v. Newsom, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00005-DAD-EFB (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. Via Path

17

Technologies, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00769-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. FBI, et al., No. 2:24-

18

cv-01038-KJM-SCR (E.D. Cal.); Bennett v. Gocke, et al., No. 2:24-cv-01776-CKD (E.D. Cal.).

19

Therefore, the record demonstrates that petitioner knows how to file a civil rights complaint, and,

20

indeed he has done so many times during the course of his confinement on the present state

21

criminal charges. Therefore, the court should not exercise its discretion to convert the pending

22

habeas corpus petition into a civil rights complaint.

23

IV.

Plain Language Summary for Pro Se Party

24

Because petitioner is proceeding without the assistance of an attorney, the following

25

information is meant to explain this order in plain English. It is not intended as legal advice.

26

6

27
28

See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251 (1971) (district courts have discretion to
construe a habeas petition attacking conditions of confinement as a complaint under section 1983
despite deliberate choice by petitioner to proceed on habeas), superseded by statute on other
grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 84 (2006).
5

1

After reviewing the habeas petition, the undersigned has concluded that the federal court

2

should not intervene in your pending state criminal proceedings pursuant to the Younger

3

abstention doctrine. Even if the Younger abstention doctrine does not apply to your case, your

4

claims would not be reviewable in this habeas corpus action. It is also recommended that your

5

request to convert your claims into a civil rights action be denied because you have already filed

6

five separate § 1983 actions in this court which are pending.

7

If you disagree with these recommendations, you have 14 days to explain why they are

8

wrong. Label your explanation as “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and

9

Recommendations.” The district court judge assigned to your case will review them and make

10
11
12

the final decision about whether your case is dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motions for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 3,4) are granted.

13

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that:

14

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

15
16
17
18
19

prejudice based on the Younger abstention doctrine;
2. Petitioner’s request to recharacterize the present habeas corpus petition as a civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 be denied in the exercise of the court’s discretion; and,
3. All pending motions, including petitioner’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 9),
be denied as moot in light of the recommended summary dismissal.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner

25

may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of

26

the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district

27

court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the

28

applicant); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 824-825 (9th Cir. 2009)(holding that a certificate of
6

1

appealability is required for § 2241 petitions filed by state pretrial detainees). Where, as here, a

2

habeas petition is dismissed on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue if

3

the prisoner can show: (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

4

was correct in its procedural ruling;’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable

5

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right.’” Morris v.

6

Woodford, 229 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

7

(2000)). Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after

8

service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

9

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

10

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

11

Dated: August 29, 2024
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

12/benn2885.summ.dism.2241

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7