Collier v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County

Filing 5

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 05/15/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(tmi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

JOE ROBERT COLLIER,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C-13-1969 TEH (PR)

Petitioner,

ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

v.
SUPERIOR COURT SANTA CLARA
COUNTY,

12
Respondent.
13

/

14
15

Petitioner Joe Robert Collier has filed a pro se petition

16

for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 alleging that his

17

legal materials and attorney work product were seized by the Santa

18

Clara Sheriff’s Department while he was litigating pro se his motion

19

for a new trial in the Santa Clara Superior Court.

20

Petitioner alleges that the seizure of his legal materials is a

21

violation of his Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights.

22

Petitioner’s criminal case is still pending before the Santa Clara

23

Superior Court.

24

petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED and a certificate of

25

appealability is denied.

26

forma pauperis is granted and his request for appointment of counsel

27

is denied as moot.

28

Doc. #1.

Doc. #1.

Doc. #1.

For the reasons set forth below, the

Petitioner’s application to proceed in

Doc. ## 2, 3.

1

I

2

On February 10, 2011, Petitioner was convicted by a jury

3

of first degree burglary and entering with intent to commit theft.

4

Doc. #1, Ex. 1, In re Collier, on Habeas Corpus, No. CC822808

5

(August 2, 2012) (In re Collier).

6

On June 27, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for a new trial, which

7

is still pending.

8

yet been sentenced.

9

Petitioner represented himself.

Doc. #1, In re Collier at 1.

Petitioner has not

Id.

On January 4, 2012, Petitioner filed a notice of motion to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

suppress evidence in the Superior Court, contending that the Santa

11

Clara County Sheriff’s Office unlawfully seized his legal materials

12

from his cell at the county jail in violation of his Fourth

13

Amendment rights.

14

held before a Santa Clara Superior Court judge, who ordered

15

Petitioner’s materials to be brought to his cell for twenty-four

16

hours so that he could go through the documents and take what he

17

needed to fit in a banker’s box and return the other documents for

18

safe-keeping.

19

On January 6, 2012, an evidentiary hearing was

In re Collier at 2.

On February 8, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for writ

20

of mandate in the Court of Appeal, in which he claimed that the

21

Superior Court erred in denying his motion to suppress.

22

March 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal summarily denied the petition.

23

Id.

24

habeas corpus in the Santa Clara Superior Court.

25

was denied, but was vacated.

26

in the Superior Court that was assigned to a different judge.

27

In that petition, Petitioner contended that the Superior Court erred

28

Id.

On

On June 25, 2012, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

Id.

Id.

The petition

Petitioner filed a new petition

2

Id.

1

in denying his motion to suppress.

2

Petitioner was attempting “to relitigate [the Superior Court’s]

3

rulings regarding the county jail’s procedures related to pro per

4

materials.”

5

unavailable where a petitioner had a remedy provided by statute or

6

in the ordinary course of the law.

7

relief was unavailable to Petitioner on the ground that he had an

8

available remedy because his motion for a new trial was still

9

pending, he had not yet been sentenced and, thus, he had an

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Id.

The Superior Court noted that

The court explained that habeas relief was

The court ruled that habeas

available remedy at law in the trial court.

Id. at 3.

11

On September 18, 2012, the Court of Appeal summarily

12

denied Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and, on

13

February 13, 2013, the California Supreme Court summarily denied the

14

petition.

15

federal petition asserting the one claim that his legal materials

16

and attorney work product were unconstitutionally seized by the

17

Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department.

Doc. #1, Ex. 1.

On April 30, 2013, Petitioner filed this

18

II

19

Under principles of equity, comity and federalism, a

20

federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

21

proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

22

extraordinary circumstances.

23

(1971).

24

requirements are met:

25
26
27
28

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54

Abstention under Younger is mandatory if the following four

(1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the
proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the
federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal
constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the
federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have
3

1
2
3

the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere
with the state proceeding in a way that Younger
disapproves.
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm.
v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008).

4
Younger abstention itself involved potential interference with
5
a state criminal case.

Id. (citing Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v.

6
Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627 (1986)).
7
Interference by a federal court is appropriate only upon a showing
8
of the state’s bad faith or harassment.

Id.; Younger, 401 U.S. at

9
53-54 (statute must be unconstitutional in every “clause, sentence
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
and paragraph, and in whatever manner” it is applied); Carden v.
11
Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980).
12
Younger applies to Petitioner’s federal petition.
13
First, the state initiated criminal proceedings against Petitioner
14
15

are ongoing.

Second, Petitioner’s criminal proceedings implicate

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

Doc. #1 at 2.

important state interests.

Although the issue pursued by Petitioner

is collateral to his criminal charges, the Supreme Court has held
that federal courts must refrain from intervening piecemeal into
criminal proceedings to try collateral issues.

Dubinka v. Judges of

Superior Court of State of Cal. for Co. of Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218,
223 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 130
(1975)).
Third, Petitioner is not barred from litigating the
instant federal constitutional issues in the state proceedings and,
in fact, has done so.

The fact that the state courts have rejected

Petitioner’s claims does not demonstrate that the opportunity to

4

1

raise those claims in the state courts in the future is inadequate.

2

Morehead v. Ahlin, 2010 WL 6419554, *7 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2010);

3

Baffert v. California Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.

4

2003) (plaintiff’s previous lack of success in a state court forum

5

does not render Younger abstention inappropriate).

6

is sentenced, he will have the opportunity to raise this issue on

7

direct appeal or in state habeas proceedings.

8

6419554 at *7 (state court denials of habeas corpus petition has no

9

preclusive effect).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

After Petitioner

See Morehead, 2010 WL

Fourth, litigating the instant petition would necessarily

11

require staying the state court proceedings while the issue was

12

pending in this Court.

13

Finally, Petitioner has not argued or made any showing of

14

bad faith, harassment or some other extraordinary circumstance that

15

would make abstention inappropriate.

16

82, 85 (1971) (“Only in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions

17

undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining

18

a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances

19

where irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief

20

against pending state prosecutions appropriate.”).

21

See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S.

Accordingly, under the rationale of Younger, the petition is

22

DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after Petitioner’s criminal

23

proceedings are completed, including the presentation of all claims

24

Petitioner wishes to present in his federal habeas petition to the

25

California Supreme Court.

26
27
28

5

1

III

2

The instant federal habeas petition meets the requirements

3

for abstention under Younger; therefore it is DISMISSED without

4

prejudice.

5

because Petitioner has not made “a substantial showing of the denial

6

of a constitutional right.”

7

case in which “reasonable jurists would find the district court’s

8

assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.”

9

v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Further, a certificate of appealability will not issue

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

This is not a

The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending motions as
moot and close the file.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

DATED

05/15/2013
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

G:\PRO-SE\TEH\HC.13\Collier 13-1969 HC Dis Younger.wpd

26
27
28

Slack

6