where vital state interests involved, 6 federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars interposition of 7 constitutional claims
How later courts described this case
- where vital state interests involved, 6 federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars interposition of 7 constitutional claims
- federal court should assume state procedures will afford 9 adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims in absence of 10 unambiguous authority to contrary
- Youngerabstention requires 26 dismissal of the federal action
- “[T]he court may raise 14 abstention of its own accord at any stage of the litigation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 JASMINE BENARD AUSTION, Case No. 2:20-cv-10898-ODW (AFM)
12 Petitioner,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY
13
v. PETITION SHOULD NOT BE
14 DISMISSED
SHERIFF ALEX VILLANEUVA,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
19 § 2254 on November 20, 2020. According to the petition, Petitioner is currently in
20 state custody awaiting a criminal trial on charges of domestic violence, rape, and
21 resisting arrest. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner alleges that he was denied his
22 constitutional rights by (1) the trial court’s denial of a motion to exclude the victim’s
23 inconsistent statements and (2) the trial court’s denial of him motion to dismiss the
24 case. (ECF No. 1 at 5.)
25 Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court, in which he
26 also sought to enjoin the same state court criminal proceedings. Case No. 2:20-cv-
27 08741-ODW(AFM). In the prior petition, Petitioner alleged that the State improperly
28 refiled charges after they were dismissed due to a speedy trial violation. On
1 November 10, 2020, judgment was entered dismissing that petition without prejudice
2 based upon the Court’s determination that abstention was required. For the following
3 reasons, it appears that the present petition is subject to dismissal for the same reason
4 that Petitioner’s prior petition was dismissed.
5 DISCUSSION
6 “Fundamental principles of comity and federalism prohibit the federal courts
7 from enjoining ongoing state proceedings except under ‘extraordinary
8 circumstances.’” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting
9 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971)). The longstanding public policy against
10 federal court interference with pending state court proceedings is sufficiently
11 important that federal courts may raise abstention sua sponte. See Hoye v. City of
12 Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 843 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011); Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v.
13 Cnty. of Alameda, 953 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he court may raise
14 abstention of its own accord at any stage of the litigation.”) (citing Bellotti v. Baird,
15 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976)). Younger abstention is appropriate where: “(1) there
16 is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state
17 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise
18 constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the
19 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Page v. King, 932
20 F.3d 898, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765
21 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
22 In this case, all the Younger criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner has not yet
23 been convicted or sentenced. Thus, criminal proceedings are ongoing. Second, it is
24 beyond dispute that state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests,
25 and states have an important interest in passing upon and correction violations of a
26 criminal defendant’s rights. See, e.g., Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)
27 (“This Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal
28 justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the
1 considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”)
2 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity in
3 the state trial and appellate proceedings to resolve any federal questions that may
4 have arisen during the proceedings. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden
5 State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (where vital state interests involved,
6 federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars interposition of
7 constitutional claims) (citations and quotations omitted); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco,
8 Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (federal court should assume state procedures will afford
9 adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims in absence of
10 unambiguous authority to contrary). Fourth, granting the relief Petitioner apparently
11 seeks – dismissing the charges against him – would necessarily interfere with the
12 state criminal proceedings.
13 Because the Younger requirements are satisfied in this case, abstention applies
14 to the petition unless Petitioner can demonstrate that “extraordinary circumstances”
15 warrant federal intervention. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53. “Only in cases of proven
16 harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of
17 obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where
18 irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state
19 prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). Petitioner does
20 not allege, and nothing suggests, that such extraordinary circumstances exist here.
21 Based upon the foregoing, it appears that Younger abstention is required and
22 that this petition should be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling after
23 Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings (including his direct appeal) are completed
24 and his federal claims have been properly presented to the California courts. See
25 Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988)(Youngerabstention requires
26 dismissal of the federal action); Gomez v. FBI, 2017 WL 5668027, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
27 Nov. 27, 2017) (summary dismissal warranted where all of the Youngerrequirements
28 were satisfied, and no extraordinary circumstances existed).
1 ORDER
2 Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before December 23, 2020 why this
3 || action should not be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of Younger abstention.
4 Petitioner is cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this
5 || Order may result in the dismissal of this petition without or for failure to
6 || prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b);
7 || C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 41-1.
8 IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 || DATED: 12/7/2020 (Wy & □
ns
11
12 ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON
3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28