Muric v. Lombardo et al

Filing 3

ORDER granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Case is dismissed without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is declined. Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 6/25/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
Ramon Dorado Muric,

4

Case No.: 2:18-cv-00683-JAD-VCF

Petitioner

5
6

v.

7

Order Dismissing Case

Joseph Lombardo,
Respondent

8
9

Pro se petitioner Ramon Dorado Muric is a pre-trial detainee at the Clark County

10 Detention Center who petitions for a writ of habeas corpus1 and applies to proceed in forma
11 pauperis.2 He is awaiting trial in the Eighth Judicial District Court in case no. C-17-323098-1,
12 which is set to begin in January 2019.3
13

Federal courts should abstain from intervening in pending state criminal proceedings

14 unless there are extraordinary circumstances of a great and immediate danger of irreparable
15 harm.4 A court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated
16 proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal
17 plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4)
18 the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e.,
19 would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.”5
20
21
22
23

1

ECF No. 1-1.

2

ECF No. 1.

3

Eighth Judicial District Court Portal https:/www.clarkcountycourts.us/portal (last visited June
22, 2018) (search by case number C-17-323098-1). It appears that Muric is known in the state25 court system as Ramon Muril Dorado.
4
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45–46 (1971); see also Ex Parte Royall, 117 U.S. 241, 251
26 (1886)
27 5 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546
28 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008).
24

1

The Younger elements are all satisfied here. There is a state criminal trial pending

1

2 against Muric, and the prosecution of crimes is an important state interest.6 Muric may also raise
3 his constitutional claims in the state courts by motion before the trial court, on appeal, or in a
4 post-conviction habeas corpus petition (and it appears from the online docket and Muric’s filings
5 in this case that he is in fact litigating his constitutional claims in the state court). Finally, if this
6 court granted Muric relief, it would terminate his state-court criminal action—a result that
7 Younger disapproves of. I must therefore abstain from considering this habeas petition.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application to proceed in forma

8

9 pauperis [ECF No. 1] is GRANTED. Muric need not pay the $5.00 filing fee.
The Clerk of Court is directed to DETACH and FILE the petition for a writ of habeas

10

11 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice to Muric’s

12

13 ability to litigate his claims in the appropriate forum at the appropriate time.
The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT accordingly and CLOSE

14

15 THIS CASE.
And because reasonable jurists would not find my decision to abstain from considering

16

17 this petition at this time to be debatable or wrong, I decline to issue a certificate of appealability.
Dated: June 25, 2018

18

_______________________________
U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

6

See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986); Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 585 (1979);
Younger, 401 U.S. at 43–44.
28
2