Mixson v. State of California

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/30/15. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND E. MIXSON,

12
13
14

Petitioner,
v.
STAT OF CALIFORNIA,

15-0878 LAB (DHB)

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Respondent.

15

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of

16
17

Civil No.

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
ABSTENTION

18
19

The Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from

20

consideration of his claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris,

21

401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state

22

criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex

23

County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger

24

“espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state

25

judicial proceedings.”) These concerns are particularly important in the habeas context

26

where a state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the

27

federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983).

28

///

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0878_abstention.wpd, 43015

-1-

15cv0878

1

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when:

2

(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important

3

state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the

4

federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th

5

Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the

6

instant Petition, he admits that his case is currently pending in state court. (See Pet. at 2,

7

4-5.) Further, there is no question that the state criminal proceedings involve important

8

state interests.

9

Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that he has not been afforded an adequate

10

opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to

11

support a contention that the state courts do not provide him an adequate opportunity to

12

raise his claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. See Huffman v.

13

Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (Younger applies to state appellate proceedings

14

as well as ongoing proceedings in state trial court); see also Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764,

15

764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled

16

to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury

17

comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”)

18

CONCLUSION

19

Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist

20

which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing

21

state criminal proceedings, his Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Juidice v.

22

Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may

23

not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.)

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

DATED: April 30, 2015

27

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

28

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0878_abstention.wpd, 43015

-2-

15cv0878