Opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

11

12 DAVID ALLEN BENSON,

No. 8:25-cv-2179-MRA-BFM

13 Petitioner,

v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

14 WHY HABEAS PETITION

TODD SPITZER, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

15

Respondent.

16

17

18

This Order concerns a federal habeas petition. Petitioner David Allen

19

Benson invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF 1 (“Petition”).) Under Rule 4 of the Rules

20

Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court—rules that

21

apply to the Petition in this Court—the Court must review the Petition before

22

ordering a response. If it “plainly appears” from that initial review that

23

Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition.1

24

25

1 Because Petitioner has not yet been convicted, his Petition is appropriately

26 brought under § 2241 instead of § 2254. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824

n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). That difference does not change the outcome or the analysis.

27

First, courts apply Rule 4, where appropriate, to § 2241 habeas petitions.

28 (cont’d . . .)

1 Here, Petitioner claims that his right to a speedy trial and to the effective

2 assistance of counsel have been violated. (Petition at 5-6.) It appears, however,

3 that the Petition must be dismissed because it asks this Court to interfere in

4 ongoing state criminal proceedings. The docket in Case 21CF10862 reflects that

5 Petitioner’s case is ongoing in the state court, with a pretrial hearing set for

6 October 17, 2025. See Docket, People v. Benson, No. 21CF1086 (Cal. Super. Ct.)

7 (last viewed October 3, 2025). In all but the most unusual case, federal courts

8 will not interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding. This doctrine,

9 called Younger abstention, applies where four criteria are met, Arevalo v.

10 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018)—and all four appear to be met here.

11 First, there must be an ongoing state judicial proceeding. Here,

12 Petitioner’s criminal charges have not yet been resolved, and a pretrial hearing

13 is scheduled for October 17, 2025. Based on the docket, the first requirement

14 appears to be met.

15 Second, the proceedings must implicate important state interests. This

16 criterion is also met in Petitioner’s case, because the State of California has an

17 important interest in prosecuting criminal charges. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d

18 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986)

19 (“[T]he States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from

20

21

22 See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (a district court may “apply

any or all of these rules” to any habeas petition); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884

23

F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a

24 Section 2241 petition under Habeas Rules 1(b) and 4). Second, Younger

abstention, which is the basis of this Order to Show Cause, applies to § 2241

25 petitions. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying

Younger to pre-judgment habeas petition under § 2241).

26

27 2 https://visionpublic.occourts.org/. The Court may, and in this case does,

take judicial notice of the dockets of other courts. United States ex rel. Robinson

28 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992).

1 federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should

2 influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”).

3 Third, there must be an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to

4 raise constitutional challenges. California law permits Petitioner to raise both

5 speedy trial and counsel-related issues in criminal proceedings. Dews v.

6 Superior Ct., 223 Cal. App. 4th 660, 664 (2014) (evaluating claimed violation of

7 the federal speedy trial right); People v. Abilez, 41 Cal. 4th 472, 490 (2007), as

8 modified (Aug. 22, 2007) (considering whether trial judge’s decision not to

9 replace counsel midstream violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to

10 counsel).

11 Fourth, the relief requested in federal court would either enjoin or have

12 the practical effect of enjoining—meaning put on hold—the ongoing state

13 proceedings. Petitioner here does not state precisely what relief he may be

14 seeking, but it appears that any relief that would remedy the constitutional

15 violations alleged in the Petition would have the effect of interfering with

16 ongoing state proceedings.

17 As such, it appears that Younger abstention is appropriate here. See

18 Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]bstention principles

19 generally require a federal district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction

20 over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises a claim under the Speedy

21 Trial Clause as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.”). Where the criteria

22 for Younger abstention are met, and where no “extraordinary circumstance”

23 exist, “a district court must dismiss the federal action.” Beltran v. State of Cal.,

24 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988).

25 Petitioner is therefore ordered to show cause (meaning explain in

26 writing) why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the Petition. No

27 later than November 6, 2025, Petitioner shall respond, in writing, to this

28

1 || Order. In his response, Petitioner must set forth his arguments, if any, as to

2 || why his Petition should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in this Order.

3 Petitioner’s failure to file a timely response as ordered may result

4 || in the Court recommending to the District Judge that this case be

5 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and to follow court orders.

6

7 || DATED: October 6, 2025

9 BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF □

10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28