Lagana v. People of the State of California et al

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 7/18/13. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Certificate of Service)(cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2013)

1
2
3

*E-Filed 7/19/13*

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

No. C 13-1274 RS (PR)

JOSEPH VICTOR LAGANA,

12

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Petitioner,

13

v.

14

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
15 CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Respondents.

16

/

17

INTRODUCTION

18
19

Petitioner challenges, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,1 his pre-trial detention in state custody

20

on charges of contempt of court and disobeying a stay-away order. Petitioner asks the Court

21

to order his release on grounds that the pre-trial proceedings regarding bail and arraignment

22

violated his constitutional rights and that these violations deprived the state court of

23

jurisdiction.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
28

1

Though filed as an action under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, this action is in truth an action under
§ 2241 because petitioner is a pre-trial detainee. See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886–87
(9th Cir.2004).

DISCUSSION

1
2

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

applicable here.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED on grounds of abstention.

28
2

No. C 13-1274 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

1

A certificate of appealability will not issue. Petitioner has not shown “that jurists of

2

reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a

3

constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court

4

was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

5

Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 4) are

6

GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 2 and 4, enter judgment in favor of

7

respondents, and close the file.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: July 18, 2013
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

No. C 13-1274 RS (PR)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL