Negrete v. Unknown

Filing 2

ORDER dismissing case without prejudice. The Petition is dismissed without prejudice because this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 4/30/2018.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

LILIANA NEGRETE, on behalf of
Edward Carlos Negrete,

15

ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner,

13
14

Case No.: 18cv0753 JAH (WVG)

v.
UNKNOWN, Warden,
Respondent.

16
17

Liliana Negrete, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on

18

behalf of Edward Carlos Negrete.1

19

///

20

///

21

///

22
23
Filing a habeas corpus petition on behalf of another party requires “next friend” status. Whitmore v.
Arkansas, et al., 495 U.S. 149, 161-164 (1990). Next friend status is not automatically granted. A court
may grant an individual next friend status if that individual seeking it provides “an adequate explanation
– such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability – why the real party in interest cannot
appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action,” and establishes that he or she is “truly dedicated to the
best interests of the person on whose behalf he seeks to litigate . . . .” Id. at 163-64. While it is
premature for the Court to determine whether Liliana Negrete should be granted next friend status, the
parties are advised that “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status
and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 164.
1

24
25
26
27
28

1
18cv0753 JAH (WVG)

1

FAILURE TO SATISFY FILING FEE REQUIREMENT

2

Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not filed a motion to proceed in

3

forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00

4

filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.

5

ABSTENTION

6

This Court infers, based upon the allegations in the Petition that Edward Negrete is

7

currently in state custody and facing ongoing criminal proceedings. As such, the Petition

8

must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred from consideration of his

9

claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

10

Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings

11

absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v.

12

Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal

13

policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”) These

14

concerns are particularly important in the habeas context where a state prisoner’s

15

conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue moot.

16

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

17

Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when:

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria appear to be satisfied here. At the time the Petition

22

was filed, Edward Negrete was in the custody of the Superior Court of San Diego County

23

and was being prosecuted for violations of California Health and Safety Code §§ 11351

24

and 11378. (See Pet., ECF No. 1 at 3.) Thus, the criminal case appears to be ongoing in

25

the state courts. Further, there is no question that the state criminal proceedings involve

26

important state interests.

27
28

Finally, Negrete has failed to show that he has not been afforded an adequate
opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. He offers nothing to support a
2
18cv0753 JAH (WVG)

1

contention that the state courts do not provide him an adequate opportunity to raise his

2

claims. Thus, abstention is therefore required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65

3

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

4

federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in,

5

[and] judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.”)

6

FAILURE TO STATE GROUNDS FOR RELIEF IN PETITION

7

In addition, Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that the

8

petition “shall set forth in summary form the facts supporting each of the grounds . . .

9

specified [in the petition].” Rule 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Boehme v.

10

Maxwell, 423 F.2d 1056, 1058 (9th Cir. 1970) (trial court’s dismissal of federal habeas

11

proceeding affirmed where petitioner made conclusory allegations instead of factual

12

allegations showing that he was entitled to relief). Here, Negrete fails to state any

13

grounds for relief in the Petition. He simply states that he is illegally detained because he

14

is “one of the people of the United States, [n]o injured party exist[s], [there is] no

15

damaged property[, and he is] held under color of law by a municipal code.” (Pet., ECF

16

No. 1 at 3.)

17

While courts should liberally interpret pro se pleadings with leniency and

18

understanding, this should not place on the reviewing court the entire onus of ferreting

19

out grounds for relief. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001). The

20

Court finds that the Petition contains conclusory allegations without any grounds for

21

relief. A federal court may not entertain a petition that contains allegations which are

22

conclusory. In order to satisfy Rule 2(c), Petitioner must point to a “real possibility of

23

constitutional error.” Cf. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n.7 (1977) (internal

24

quotation marks omitted).

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3
18cv0753 JAH (WVG)

1
2

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because

3

this Court must abstain from interfering with the ongoing state criminal proceedings

4

pursuant to the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 30, 2018

_________________________________________
John A. Houston
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
18cv0753 JAH (WVG)