(HC) Laster v. USA

Filing 20

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Chi Soo Kim on 3/7/2025 DENYING as MOOT 6 Request to use an earlier-submitted application to proceed IFP; GRANTING 7 , 10 , 16 , and 19 Motions to Proceed IFP; DENYING 13 and 18 -1 Requests for Issuance of Subpoenas; and DISMISSING 18 Second Amended Petition with leave to amend within 30 days for the date of this order. (Deputy Clerk HAH)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEVI DALE LASTER, JR.,

12

Petitioner,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:25-cv-0440 CSK P

ORDER

USA,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a county jail inmate proceeding pro se. This action was referred to this Court

18

by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On February 11, 2025, petitioner was

19

ordered to file an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the court’s filing fee. (ECF No.

20

3.) On February 13, 2025, petitioner filed a request for the Court to use the application to proceed

21

in forma pauperis form previously submitted. (ECF No. 6.) But petitioner subsequently filed

22

applications to proceed in forma pauperis, and a trust account statement. (ECF Nos. 7, 9 at 6, 10,

23

19.) Thus, his February 13, 2025 request is denied as moot. (ECF No. 6.)

24
25
26

Examination of the affidavits reveals petitioner is unable to afford the costs of this action.
Accordingly, leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
On February 25, 2025, petitioner filed a second amended petition for writ of habeas

27

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 18.) As discussed below, petitioner’s second

28

amended petition is dismissed with leave to amend.
1

1

I.

THE § 2254 PETITION

2

A. Standards Governing § 2254 Petitions

3

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

4

petition if it “plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the

5

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. . . .” Id. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing

6

Section 2254 Cases provides that the petition: “shall specify all the grounds for relief which are

7

available to the petitioner and of which he has or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should

8

have knowledge and shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds thus

9

specified.” Rule 2(c), R. Gov. § 2254 Cases. Petitioner must also clearly state the relief sought in

10

the petition. Id. Additionally, the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 explains that “notice

11

pleading is not sufficient, for the petition is expected to state facts that point to a real possibility

12

of constitutional error.” Advisory Comm. Notes to Rule 4; see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S.

13

63, 75, n.7 (1977).

14

B. Discussion

15

Petitioner provides contradictory information in the second amended petition. Petitioner

16

first claims he is in custody for a criminal conviction, and alleges he was set up. 1 (ECF No. 18 at

17

2, 3.) But petitioner does not identify the conviction or provide the date he was sentenced. 2 The

18

second amended petition fails to comply with Rule 2(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.

19

Therefore, the second amended § 2254 petition is dismissed with leave to amend. Rule 4, Rules

20
1

23

Petitioner claims he needs a civil court date to prove his innocence. However, if petitioner is
awaiting trial, he will be given an opportunity to provide a defense at trial. If petitioner has been
convicted, he may challenge his conviction on appeal in state court, or, after he has exhausted
state court remedies, he may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in
federal court.

24

2

21
22

25
26
27
28

Butte County Superior Court records confirm that petitioner has sustained felony convictions.
The court may take judicial notice of facts that are “not subject to reasonable dispute because it ...
can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b), including undisputed information posted on official websites.
Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). It is
appropriate to take judicial notice of the docket sheet of a California court. White v. Martel, 601
F.3d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 2010). The address of the official website of the Butte County Superior
Court is https://portal-cabutte.tylertech.cloud/Portal/Home/Dashboard/29 (accessed Mar. 5,
2025).
2

1

Gov. § 2254 Cases. If petitioner chooses to file a third amended petition under § 2254,

2

challenging a criminal conviction or sentence, petitioner must provide the date he was convicted

3

or sentenced, and set forth each claim for relief and summarize the facts he alleges support each

4

of the identified claims.

5

II.

POTENTIAL § 2241 PETITION

6

A. Standards Governing § 2241 Petitions

7

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2254 governs federal habeas corpus challenges to final state criminal

8

judgments, while § 2241 governs challenges of pretrial detainees in currently-pending cases with

9

no final judgments. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973).

10

Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides that “[t]he district court may apply

11

any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered by Rule 1(a),” such as a § 2241

12

case.

13

B. Discussion

14

Petitioner also claims he pled not guilty, and is awaiting trial. 3 (ECF No. 18 at 2.)

15

In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that when there is a pending state criminal

16

proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution absent special or

17

extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). The Ninth Circuit has “articulated a four-

18

part test to determine when Younger requires that federal courts abstain from adjudicating cases

19

that would enjoin or risk interfering with pending state-court proceedings.” Duke v. Gastelo, 64

20

F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023). “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an

21

ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicate[s] important state interests;

22

(3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and

23

(4) the requested relief seek[s] to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state

24

judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations in

25

original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). All four requirements must be met to

26

find abstention appropriate. Duke, 64 F.4th at 1094. But even if all four Younger factors are

27
28

3

Butte County Superior Court records also confirm that petitioner is awaiting trial on felony
charges. People v. Levi Dale Laster, Jr., No. 24CF04225.
3

1

satisfied, federal courts will not invoke the abstention doctrine if there is a “showing of bad faith,

2

harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.”

3

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982).

4

Review of the second amended petition as well as petitioner’s pending criminal charges in

5

the Butte County Superior Court confirm that all four Younger factors are satisfied. There is an

6

ongoing state criminal prosecution, which implicates important state interests. There is an

7

adequate opportunity in petitioner’s state criminal proceedings, whether at the trial level or on

8

appeal, to raise constitutional challenges. See Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987)

9

(holding that federal courts should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate

10

opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority

11

to the contrary”). Petitioner’s presumptive relief, release from custody, would enjoin the ongoing

12

state criminal prosecution. Petitioner includes no facts or evidence suggesting he can

13

demonstrate extraordinary circumstances render Younger abstention inappropriate.
Thus, if petitioner is attempting to challenge his pending criminal charges, based on the

14
15

second amended petition alone, this Court would have to abstain from considering such a

16

challenge. However, because petitioner’s allegations in the second amended petition are

17

contradictory, and petitioner has not previously been provided guidance concerning his potential

18

claims, the second amended petition is dismissed, and petitioner is granted leave to file a third

19

amended petition that clarifies what he is attempting to challenge by way of this federal habeas

20

action. If petitioner is attempting to challenge the pending criminal charges against him,

21

petitioner must file his third amended petition on the form for pursuing habeas relief under

22

28 U.S.C. § 2241, and must demonstrate extraordinary circumstances render Younger abstention

23

inappropriate.

24

III.

25

SUBSEQUENT FILINGS BY PETITIONER
Since this action was filed on January 6, 2025, petitioner has filed over eleven documents,

26

some of which were improper and duplicative, and others were premature. For example, he

27

prematurely filed witness lists, subpoenas, and a motion for extension of time. (ECF Nos. 8, 13,

28

14, 17, 18-1.) At the time he sought an extension of time, there was no deadline that required an
4

1

extension of time. (ECF No. 17.) As a pro se litigant, petitioner must keep track of his own cases

2

and deadlines, and should not seek a prospective extension of time “if it’s needed.” (ECF No. 17

3

at 2.) To the extent petitioner seeks issuance of subpoenas, such request is denied as premature.

4

(ECF Nos. 13, 18-1.) In addition, on February 7, 2025, petitioner filed 97 pages of miscellaneous

5

documents, including some stamped by the Butte County Superior Court, without any explanation

6

for their purpose, and on February 14, 2025, petitioner submitted a five page letter with a copy of

7

his trust account statement, but then included 30 additional pages of documents, including lists of

8

all presidents and vice presidents of the United States. (ECF Nos. 4, 9.) Petitioner is advised that

9

the Court is not a repository for petitioner’s evidence or other unrelated documents. Also,

10

petitioner is not required to append exhibits to his third amended petition. In the future, petitioner

11

must refrain from filing random documents in this case. Rather, petitioner should wait for an

12

appropriate motion or Court order to be filed that either requires petitioner to submit an exhibit in

13

support of an opposition to the motion or in response to a Court order. Petitioner is formally

14

cautioned that a litigant proceeding in forma pauperis may suffer restricted access to the

15

court where it is determined that he has filed excessive motions in a pending action. DeLong

16

v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351, 352 (10th

17

Cir. 1989). Petitioner’s filings have presented a significant drain on Court resources. 4

18

Thus, petitioner is cautioned that this Court views the number of documents filed to date as

19

excessive and consideration will be given to restricted court access if petitioner does not

20

exercise appropriate restraint going forward.

21

IV.

CONCLUSION

22

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

23

1. Petitioner’s request to use an earlier-submitted application to proceed in forma

24

pauperis (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot.
2. Petitioner’s requests for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 7, 10, 16, 19)

25
26
27
28

are granted.
4

“Judges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation.” Cortez
v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2014).
5

1

3. Petitioner’s requests for issuance of subpoenas are denied. (ECF Nos. 13, 18-1.)

2

4. Petitioner’s second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

to amend within thirty days from the date of this order.
5. Any third amended petition must bear the case number assigned to this action and the
title “Third Amended Petition.”
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the court’s form application for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
7. Failure to file a third amended petition will result in a recommendation that this action
be dismissed.

10
11

Dated: March 7, 2025

12
13
14

/1/last0440.114

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6