Jerry Anderson v. On Habeas Corpus

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-4868-CJC (SP) Date June 11, 2020

Title JERRY ANDERSON v. ON HABEAS CORPUS

Present: The Sheri Pym, United States Magistrate Judge

Honorable

Kimberly I. Carter n/a n/a

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent:

n/a n/a

Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Why Petition Should Not Be

Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction

On May 27, 2020, petitioner filed a document titled “Requesting Investigation on

Habeas Petition Pertaining to Timeliness and Misconduct by Courts,” which the court has

docketed as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). But the “Petition”

does not in fact appear to be a true habeas petition that presents a cognizable claim for

federal habeas relief, among other defects. As such, it appears this court lacks

jurisdiction to grant the relief petitioner seeks.

Failure to Name Proper Respondent

As an initial matter, it appears this court lacks jurisdiction because petitioner fails

to name a proper respondent, or any respondent. Petitioner simply captions the matter

“In re Anderson Jerry Habeas Corpus (State) Investigation.”

A habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by a petitioner who is

currently in custody under a state court judgment must name as respondent the state

officer who has custody of the petitioner. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35, 124

S. Ct. 2711, 159 L. Ed. 2d 513 (2004); 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rule 2(a) of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“If the petitioner is

currently in custody under a state-court judgment, the petition must name as respondent

the state officer who has custody.”). Thus, “[t]he default rule is that the proper

respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . .” Rumsfeld,

542 U.S. at 435; accord Stanley v. California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-4868-CJC (SP) Date June 11, 2020

Title JERRY ANDERSON v. ON HABEAS CORPUS

“typically . . . the warden of the facility in which the petitioner is incarcerated”). The

Ninth Circuit has held that the “[f]ailure to name the correct respondent destroys personal

jurisdiction.” Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended

May 8, 1996); see also Stanley, 21 F.3d at 360.

Since petitioner here fails to name any respondent, this court lacks jurisdiction to

grant habeas relief. Were that the only problem, it could be easily remedied. But the

Petition suffers from more fundamental defects.

No Cognizable Claim for Federal Habeas Relief

Section 2254 permits a federal court to entertain a habeas petition by a prisoner in

state custody “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or

laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see Estelle v. McGuire, 502

U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S. Ct. 475, 116 L. Ed. 2d 385 (“it is not the province of a federal

habeas court to reexamine state-court determinations on state-law questions”). Further,

“the essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in state custody upon the legality

of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal

custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S. Ct. 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439

(1973); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F. 3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2005).

Here, petitioner contends the trial court suppressed exculpatory evidence, and he

appears to ultimately seek the reversal of his conviction and release from custody. But

that is not what he seeks with the instant Petition. Instead, with this Petition, petitioner

apparently seeks evidence he wishes to use to bring his habeas claims in the state courts,

and perhaps later in federal court. He contends the state courts are covering each others’

errors by thwarting his efforts to obtain reporter’s transcripts and learn of the progress of

his state habeas petitions. He asks this federal court to investigate the state courts and

order the state courts to provide him with trial transcripts. This is well beyond the scope

of federal habeas relief.

Most fundamentally, petitioner is not seeking release from custody with this

Petition. He is seeking transcripts and an investigation of the state courts. Absent a true

habeas claim that may result in petitioner’s release from custody, this court lacks

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-4868-CJC (SP) Date June 11, 2020

Title JERRY ANDERSON v. ON HABEAS CORPUS

petitioner’s custody).

Lack of Jurisdiction Over the State Courts

Even if the Petition could somehow be construed as seeking release from custody,

petitioner is asking this federal court to investigate the state courts and order the state

courts to prepare and release transcripts. That is something this court lacks jurisdiction to

do. Although certain federal courts have the power to direct lower federal courts to take

certain actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), that statute does not give the federal courts

authority over state courts. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S.

89, 106, 104 S. Ct. 900, 79 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1984) (Eleventh Amendment prohibits federal

district court from ordering state officials to conform their conduct to state law). Thus, a

petition seeking to compel a state official to take or refrain from some action is frivolous

as a matter of law. Demos v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 925 F.2d 1160, 1161-62 (9th Cir. 1991); see

Robinson v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 997 F. Supp. 1303, 1308 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (federal

courts are without power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state agencies in the

performance of their duties).

Simply put, this court does not have authority to review state court decisions,

particularly on matters such as preparation and release of transcripts. To the extent

petitioner is asking this court to overturn the state court’s denials of his transcript

requests, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars the request. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine,

derived from two United States Supreme Court opinions, provides that federal district

courts may exercise only original jurisdiction; they may not exercise appellate

jurisdiction over state court decisions. See D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482-

86, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413,

415-16, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923); Bennett v. Yoshina, 140 F.3d 1218, 1223

(9th Cir. 1998) (as amended). Review of state court decisions may be conducted only by

the United States Supreme Court. See Feldman, 460 U.S. at 476, 486; Rooker, 263 U.S.

at 416; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1257.

Younger Abstention

Additionally, by asking this court to investigate the state courts and order them to

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-4868-CJC (SP) Date June 11, 2020

Title JERRY ANDERSON v. ON HABEAS CORPUS

Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court was

prohibited from enjoining a state criminal proceeding without a valid showing of

“extraordinary circumstances” that warrant federal intervention. Id. at 43-54. Younger

abstention principles apply to federal habeas proceedings. See Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d

899, 900-03 (9th Cir. 2012). Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts may

not stay or enjoin pending state criminal court proceedings, nor grant monetary damages

for constitutional violations arising from them. Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th

Cir. 1986). Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state court proceedings are

ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state

proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims.

Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432, 102 S.

Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982); Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 617

(9th Cir. 2003). When the Younger elements are present, the federal court may exercise

jurisdiction only when state proceedings are conducted in bad faith or an extraordinary

circumstance exists. Baffert, 332 F.3d at 617.

Here, it appears petitioner is in still presenting his habeas claims to the state courts,

and wants this federal court to assist him in that effort. His habeas petitions are a

challenge to his criminal conviction, and as such implicate important state interests. See

Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987)

(enforcement of state court judgments and orders implicates important state interests).

Further, there is no reason petitioner cannot raise his claims about trial transcripts in

those state habeas proceedings. Indeed, it appears he has sought to do just that based on

the copy of his habeas petition to the California Court of Appeal he included with the

instant Petition. Accordingly, all the Younger elements are present, and for this reason

also this court cannot investigate or otherwise take action against the state courts as

petitioner requests.

Order to Show Cause

In sum, it appears this court lacks jurisdiction and otherwise cannot grant the relief

petitioner seeks for multiple reasons. But the court will not adjudicate this matter without

giving petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Accordingly, the court hereby issues an

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. CV 20-4868-CJC (SP) Date June 11, 2020

Title JERRY ANDERSON v. ON HABEAS CORPUS

ordered to file with the court a written response to the Order to Show Cause on or before

July 13, 2020.

In his response to the Order to Show Cause, petitioner may set forth any reasons he

wishes to argue against the dismissal of the action. The court warns petitioner that

failure to timely file and serve a response as directed in this Order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for lack of

jurisdiction, for failure to prosecute, and/or for failure to obey court orders.