Vaught v. Kernan

Filing 13

ORDER DISMISSING CASE Without Prejudice Pursuant to Pullman Abstention. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 9/27/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(anh)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ELBERT LEE VAUGHT,

Case No.: 18cv300-CAB-JMA
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT
TO PULLMAN ABSTENTION

SCOTT KERNAN,
Defendant.

15
16
17
18

On August 1, 2018, this Court issued an Order: (1) Granting Motion to Dismiss

19

Plaintiff’s Complaint (Monetary Damages Only) and (2) to Show Cause Why the Case

20

for Injunctive Relief Should Not be Stayed or Dismissed Under Younger/Pullman

21

Abstention (“OSC”). [Doc. No. 11.] On August 24, 2018, Defendant filed a response to

22

the OSC. [Doc. No. 12.] Plaintiff has not filed a response to the OSC, nor has he filed a

23

reply to Defendant’s response. For the reasons set forth below, the case is DISMISSED

24

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

25
26

BACKGROUND

27

In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that under Proposition 57, inmates who were not

28

convicted of a violent felony as a primary offense—i.e. crimes listed under California
1
18cv300-CAB-JMA

1

Penal Code §667.5—are entitled to early parole consideration after completing the full

2

term of their primary offense. [Doc. No. 1 at 3 - 7.] He alleges that CDCR regulations

3

define a violent felony consistently with this penal code section. Id. But CDCR

4

regulations, which were certified by Secretary Kernan, allegedly go further and

5

improperly exclude from early parole consideration inmates who are serving life

6

sentences for non-violent felonies. Id. at 3-6.

7

Plaintiff alleges that he is serving a 30-year-to-life sentence under California’s

8

three strike sentencing guidelines, but that his primary offense—burglary—was a non-

9

violent offense, and he has served his full term. Id. at 4. Plaintiff claims that he is eligible

10

for an early parole hearing under Proposition 57, but is denied this hearing because of

11

CDCR’s regulations. Id. at 4-7.

12

Plaintiff claims that, by implementing the CDCR regulations that exclude inmates

13

like Plaintiff from early parole consideration, Defendant has violated Plaintiff’s

14

Fourteenth Amendment equal protection and due process rights. Id. at 2. Plaintiff seeks

15

monetary damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 10.

16

On June 4, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim for monetary

17

damages. [Doc. No. 7.] In the motion to dismiss, Defendant states that Plaintiff has his

18

“own yet-undecided habeas petition on this issue [which] is currently before the

19

California Court of Appeal,” entitled “In re Elbert Lee Vaught, Court of Appeal of the

20

State of California, Case No. G054657.” [Doc. No. 7-1 at 8, n. 2.] Defendant further

21

states that “[o]nce [the state habeas is] decided, Defendant will raise res judicata issues in

22

this case.” Id.

23

On August 1, 2018, this Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, leaving only

24

a claim for injunctive relief. In addition, given that there appears to be an on-going state

25

court proceeding regarding the same issue involved in this case, and involving a matter of

26
27
28
2
18cv300-CAB-JMA

1

untested state law, the Court issued an OSC regarding why this case should not be stayed

2

or dismissed under Younger1 and/or Pullman2 abstention.

3

In response to the OSC, Defendant agreed that the case should be dismissed or

4

stayed under the Pullman abstention doctrine, and requested judicial notice pursuant to

5

Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) of the following:

6

1. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District,

7

Division Three, Case No. G054657, In re Elbert Lee Vaught, petition [Doc. No.

8

12-1 at 3-13] and court docket [Doc. No. 12-1 at 14-19];

9

2. The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District,

10

Division Seven, Case No. B289276, In re Freddie Hughey, petition [Doc. No.

11

12-1 at 20-50] and court docket [Doc. No. 12-1 at 51-53].
Given that these are official court records, Defendant’s request for judicial notice

12
13

[Doc. No. 12-1] is GRANTED.
In Plaintiff’s state court petition, he raises the same issue that he raises in this case

14
15

regarding the CDCR regulations and their impact on three-strikes inmates. [See Doc. No.

16

12-1 at 10.] In addition, the docket shows that Plaintiff is represented by counsel in his

17

state court petition, the case is fully briefed, and there has been oral argument. [Doc. No.

18

12-1 at 15-19.] Finally, the state court petition filed by Freddie Hughey also addresses

19

the same issue addressed here, and that matter is also ongoing. [See Doc. No. 12-1 at 25-

20

27, 52-53.]

21
22

DISCUSSION

23

Federal courts may abstain where federal constitutional issues are raised in

24

connection with state statutes whose interpretation is unsettled. Railroad Comm’n of

25

Texas v. Pullman Co. (“Pullman”), 312 U.S. 496, 500 (1941). The Pullman abstention

26
27
1

28

2

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 40–41, 91 S.Ct. 746 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971).
Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co. (“Pullman”), 312 U.S. 496, 500 (1941).
3
18cv300-CAB-JMA

1

doctrine allows a federal court to postpone the exercise of federal jurisdiction when “a

2

federal constitutional issue ... might be mooted or presented in a different posture by a

3

state court determination of pertinent state law.” C–Y Dev. Co. v. City of Redlands, 703

4

F.2d 375, 377 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360

5

U.S. 185, 189 (1959)); see also Pearl Investment Co. v. City and Cty. of San Francisco,

6

774 F.2d 1460, 1462 (9th Cir. 1985) (under the Pullman abstention doctrine, courts

7

should abstain in cases presenting a federal constitutional question if constitutional

8

adjudication could be avoided or the constitutional question narrowed by a state court

9

ruling on an uncertain question of state law). In the Ninth Circuit, three criteria must be

10

met before Pullman abstention is appropriate: (1) The complaint touches a sensitive area

11

of social policy upon which the federal courts ought not to enter unless no alternative to

12

its adjudication is open. (2) Such constitutional adjudication plainly can be avoided if a

13

definitive ruling on the state issue would terminate the controversy. (3) The possibly

14

determinative issue of state law is doubtful. Smelt v. Cty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673, 679

15

(9th Cir. 2006).

16

Here, it is clear that in at least two ongoing state appellate court proceedings,

17

including Plaintiff’s, the state court is addressing the same issue presented in this case.

18

Moreover, all three criteria for Pullman abstention are met. Smelt, 447 F.3d at 679. The

19

social policy concerning prison sentencing, especially relating to three-strike inmates, is a

20

sensitive area that has traditionally been regulated through state law. In addition,

21

constitutional adjudication would be avoided if the state court rules in Plaintiff’s favor

22

and CDCR amends its regulations. Finally, it is impossible to predict which way the

23

court will rule. Thus, Pullman abstention is appropriate.

24

Given that the only relief sought in this case is equitable, this court has discretion

25

to either stay the action or decline jurisdiction altogether by dismissing the action.

26

Quackenbush v. Allstate, Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 717-722 (1996). This Court elects in its

27

discretion to DISMISS the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

28

/////
4
18cv300-CAB-JMA

1
2
3
4
5

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 27, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
18cv300-CAB-JMA