Crump v. Plummer

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/28/11. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2011)

1
2

*E-Filed 12/28/11*

3
4
5
6
7

UNITED SATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
REOPEN ACTION

Petitioner,

12
13

No. C 11-4920 RS (PR)

STEVE CRUMP,

v.
CHARLES PLUMMER,
Respondent.

15

/

16
17

This is a closed federal habeas corpus action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by

18

a pro se state prisoner. The action was dismissed, and judgment entered in favor of

19

respondent, because the petition appeared to be in truth a civil rights complaint.

20

Petitioner now has filed an amended petition, which makes it clear that he is

21

challenging his pre-trial detention on state charges of making terrorist threats and identity

22

theft. Petitioner asks for the Court to order his immediate release on grounds of malicious

23

prosecution, false arrest, and retaliation. The Court construes the amended petition as

24

containing a motion to reopen the action. So construed, it is DENIED on grounds of

25

abstention.

26
27

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

28
No. C 11-4920 RS (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOT. TO REOPEN

1

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

2

specifically, federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a

3

showing of the state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is

4

“flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Younger, 401 U.S.

5

at 46, 53–54. Younger abstention is required when (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature,

6

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

7

proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex

8

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

9

Abstention is appropriate here because all of the elements of Younger are present.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Nothing in the petition suggests there are extraordinary circumstances requiring this Court’s

11

interference in state court criminal proceedings. As to the first Younger element, the

12

record demonstrates that petitioner’s state court proceedings are ongoing. As to the second

13

Younger element, the Supreme Court has held that “a proper respect for state functions,”

14

such as ongoing criminal trial proceedings, is an important issue of state interest. See Preiser

15

v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491–92 (1973) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). As to the

16

third prong of Younger, the Court finds no reason that plaintiff cannot pursue his

17

constitutional claims in state court. Furthermore, any interference by this Court in the state

18

court proceedings would cause results disapproved of by Younger. SJSVCCPAC v. City of

19

San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). Thus, Younger abstention is

20

applicable here.

21

When Younger applies, and the party seeks injunctive relief, as petitioner does here by

22

asking the Court to order his immediate release, federal courts should dismiss the action in its

23

entirety. See Colorado River Water Conserv. Dist. v. U.S., 424 U.S. 800, 816 n.22 (1976).

24

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion to reopen the action is DENIED on grounds of abstention.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

DATED: December 28, 2011
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

27
28
2

No. C 11-4920 RS (PR)
ORDER DENYING MOT. TO REOPEN