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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?