Gadlin v. Unknown

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 1/6/2021. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2021)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GREGORY A. GADLIN,
Petitioner,

8
v.

9
10

RALPH DIAZ, et al.,
Respondents.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 20-cv-02867-JD
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Re: Dkt. No. 11

12
Gregory Gadlin, a pro se state prisoner, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

13
14

Respondents filed a motion to dismiss asserting that abstention is appropriate pursuant to Younger

15

v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), because petitioner is currently pursuing an appeal in the California

16

Court of Appeal. Despite being provided extra time to file a response, petitioner has not filed an

17

opposition or otherwise communicated with the Court since the filing of this case.
BACKGROUND

18

Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder with personal use of a firearm. People

19
20

v. Gadlin, No. A149764, 2018 WL 5816613, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 7, 2018). Petitioner was

21

sentenced to state prison for an indeterminate term of 117 years to life. Petition (Docket No. 5) at

22

1. On November 7, 2018, the California Court of Appeal ordered the judgment be modified to

23

strike a $250 probation fee, but otherwise affirmed the conviction. Gadlin, 2018 WL 5816613, at

24

*1. On February 13, 2019, the California Supreme Court denied review. Motion to Dismiss

25

(“MTD”), Ex. 4. The claims in this federal petition were exhausted in this first appeal. Petition at

26

3-19.

27

On February 22, 2019, petitioner filed a habeas petition with the California Court of

28

Appeal seeking a remand for resentencing for the trial court to exercise its discretion to dismiss the

1

five-year enhancements for having three prior serious felony convictions under the newly

2

amended California Penal Code section 667(a) and the firearm enhancement under the newly

3

amended California Penal Code section 12022.53(h). MTD, Ex. 6. The California Court of

4

Appeal issued an order to show cause returnable to the Alameda County Superior Court why

5

petitioner is not entitled to resentencing under the newly amended California Penal Code section

6

12022.53(h). Id., Ex. 7. On May 10, 2019, the California Court of Appeal modified its order to

7

show cause to also consider resentencing under the newly amended California Penal Code section

8

667(a). Id., Ex. 8.

9

On September 5, 2019, the Alameda County Superior Court granted the petition. Id., Ex.
9. The superior court held a resentencing hearing on January 29, 2020, where it declined to strike

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the enhancements for the prior serious felony convictions or the firearm enhancement. Id., Ex. 10.

12

The court did strike two one-year prison prior term enhancements, resulting in a 115 year to life

13

sentence. Id.

14

On March 3, 2020, petitioner appealed the resentencing to the California Court of Appeal.

15

Id., Ex. 11. Petitioner filed this instant federal habeas petition on April 27, 2020. Docket No. 1.

16

Petitioner is represented by counsel in his state court appeal and the current deadline for his

17

opening brief is January 14, 2021. People v. Gadlin, Case No. A159833.

18

ABSTENTION

19

Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with

20

ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent

21

extraordinary circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54. The rationale of Younger applies

22

throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be

23

exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. See Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior

24

Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (even if criminal trials were completed at time of

25

abstention decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). These concerns are

26

especially important in the habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on

27

appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue moot. See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634

28

(9th Cir. 1983). Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under the Younger principle is
2

1

required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate

2

important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional

3

issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have

4

the practical effect of doing so. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action

5

Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, all of the Younger criteria are satisfied. First, the direct appeal in petitioner’s

6
7

criminal case is pending in the California Court of Appeal. Thus, state judicial proceedings are

8

ongoing. Second, state criminal proceedings involve important state interests. See Kelly v.

9

Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45) (“This Court has recognized
that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court

12

considering equitable types of relief.”). Third, petitioner is not barred from litigating his federal

13

constitutional issues in state court. Fourth, the underlying federal petition threatens to interfere

14

with the state criminal proceedings in a manner that Younger disapproves by inserting federal

15

court oversight into an ongoing state criminal proceeding. Accordingly, abstention is appropriate

16

here.

17

The exhaustion-of-state-remedies rule requires that prisoners in state custody who wish to

18

challenge collaterally in federal habeas proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement

19

must first exhaust state judicial remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings,

20

by presenting the highest state court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each

21

and every claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)-(c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). Even

22

when the petitioner has exhausted his state remedies for the claims contained in the federal

23

petition for writ of habeas corpus, Younger abstention is appropriate if there still is an appeal

24

pending in state court. See Sherwood, 716 F.2d at 634. “When, as in the present case, an appeal

25

of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the

26

outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are exhausted, even where the issue to be

27

challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally settled in the state courts.” Id. Although

28

the claims contained in petitioner’ federal habeas petition may have been presented in his first
3

1

state court appeal, the existence of his now-pending second state court appeal (following the

2

resentencing proceedings) supports Younger abstention in this action. See Henderson v. Johnson,

3

710 F.3d 872, 874 (9th Cir. 2013) (“[A] district court may not adjudicate a federal habeas petition

4

while a petitioner’s direct state appeal is pending.”)

5

Due to the direct appeal pending in the California Court of Appeal, this action will be

6

dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine. The dismissal will be without prejudice to

7

petitioner filing a new petition for writ of habeas corpus after his direct appeal is finished.

8

Because there is a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of a federal petition for writ of

9

habeas corpus, see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), petitioner is cautioned to act swiftly to return to federal

10

court with his new petition for writ of habeas corpus when the direct appeal concludes.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION

12

1. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED and this case is

13

DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner may file a new petition when the direct appeal

14

concludes.

15

2. A certificate of appealability (“COA”) will not issue because this is not a case in which

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

declines to issue a COA regarding the procedural holding or the underlying claims of the petition.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2021

22
23
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4