Brew v. Rosen et al

Filing 24

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 10/25/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2011)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 10/26/11*

4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12

EMMANUEL LARS BREW,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. C 11-3226 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

v.
JEFFREY F. ROSEN, and DAN
FEHDERAU,
Defendants.
/

18
19
20

INTRODUCTION
This is a federal civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a pro se state

21

prisoner. Upon reviewing the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), the Court has

22

determined that it must abstain from interfering in the on-going state proceedings. For the

23

reasons stated herein, the action is DISMISSED.

24

BACKGROUND

25

Plaintiff was convicted in state court of murdering his son. That conviction was

26

reversed on appeal. Plaintiff was retried, and convicted again. His appeal of the second

27

conviction is pending in the state appellate court. In the instant complaint, plaintiff alleges

28
No. C 11-3226 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

that during this second appellate proceeding, defendants, the Santa Clara District attorney

2

and his deputy, violated his federal and state constitutional rights by failing to give him

3

various discovery materials, and that the state appellate court violated his federal and state

4

constitutional rights by failing to grant his motions to discover such materials. Plaintiff seeks

5

declaratory and injunctive relief, and money damages.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with
ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

9

extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971). The

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

rationale of Younger also applies throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that state

11

appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is

12

permitted. See Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994).

13

Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the

14

state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is “flagrantly and

15

patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53–54.

16

Younger abstention is required when (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending;

17

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

18

afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics

19

Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).

20

Abstention pursuant to Younger is appropriate here. All of the elements of Younger

21

are present; nothing in the complaint suggests there are extraordinary circumstances

22

requiring this Court’s interference in state court criminal proceedings. As to the first

23

Younger element, the record demonstrates that plaintiff’s state court proceedings are

24

ongoing. As to the second Younger element, the Supreme Court has held that administration

25

of state criminal facilities is an important issue of state interest. See Preiser v. Rodriguez,

26

411 U.S. 475, 491–92 (1973). As to the third prong of Younger, the court finds no reason

27

that plaintiff cannot pursue his constitutional claims included in this lawsuit in state court,

28
2

No. C 11-3226 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

including on review to the state supreme court. State courts are courts of general jurisdiction

2

and are able to adjudicate questions of federal law. See Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353,

3

366–67 (2001). Furthermore, any interference by this Court in the state court proceedings

4

would cause results disapproved of by Younger. SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d

5

1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). Thus, Younger abstention is applicable here.

6

When Younger applies, and the federal party seeks injunctive relief, as plaintiff does

7

here, federal courts should dismiss the action in its entirety. See Colorado River Water

8

Conserv. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 816 n.22 (1976). In sum, on grounds of abstention and

9

comity, the action is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 25, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

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

No. C 11-3226 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL