Cooney v. Cox

Filing 2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. The Court dismisses the case due to Petitioner's failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and on abstention grounds. The dismissal is without prejudice. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 9/27/16. (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

DEBORAH COONEY,

Civil
No.

12

Petitioner,

13
14

v.

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CYNTHIA COX,

15
16

16cv2345-LAB (JLB)

Respondent.
Petitioner Deborah Cooney, a person detained at the Las Colinas Detention and

17
18

Reentry Facility in Santee, California, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner indicates that she is currently

20

incarcerated “purportedly for an extradition proceeding” to Florida, and requests this

21

Court to order her immediate release on bail or her own recognizance. (Pet. at 1.)

22
23
24

The Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has failed to satisfy the
filing fee requirement, and on abstention grounds.
FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

25

Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed

26

in forma pauperis. Because this Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the

27

$5.00 filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court DISMISSES the

28

case without prejudice. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\16cv2345-Dismiss.wpd, 92816

-1-

16cv2345

ABSTENTION

1
2

In addition, because Petitioner is challenging ongoing state proceedings, this Court

3

is barred from consideration of her claim by the abstention doctrine announced in

4

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere

5

with ongoing state proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see

6

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

7

(stating that Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court

8

interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”); see Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716

9

F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (holding that the concerns of Younger abstention are

10

particularly important in the federal habeas context where a state prisoner’s conviction

11

may be reversed by the state court, thereby rendering the federal issue moot.)

12

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when:

13

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

14

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

15

federal issues. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799

16

(9th Cir. 2001). These criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner indicates that her state case

17

is still ongoing, and she has not shown she is unable to petition the state courts for the

18

relief she seeks. Because Petitioner has not shown extraordinary circumstances, to the

19

extent she is seeking intervention in her ongoing state proceedings, abstention is

20

required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most

21

unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of

22

injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed

23

from and the case concluded in the state courts.”)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

24
25

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides for summary

26

dismissal of a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

27

exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.”

28

Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Here, it is plain from the Petition that Petitioner is not
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\16cv2345-Dismiss.wpd, 92816

-2-

16cv2345

1

presently entitled to federal habeas relief because she has not satisfied the filing fee

2

requirement, and on abstention grounds.

3

Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the case due to Petitioner’s failure

4

to satisfy the filing fee requirement, and on abstention grounds. The dismissal is without

5

prejudice.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

DATED: September 27, 2016

9

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\16cv2345-Dismiss.wpd, 92816

-3-

16cv2345