The opinion
1 JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
Case No. CV 23-8812 CJC (MRW)
13 JOSE AYALA,
14 Petitioner,
15 v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION
16 SUPERIOR COURT,
17 Respondent.
18
19
The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas corpus action
20
based on the Younger abstention doctrine.
21
* * *
22
1. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in a Los Angeles County jail
23
facility. Petitioner alleges that he’s been in custody (including at medical
24
or mental health facilities due to ongoing competency proceedings) since
25
his arrest in 2019. (Docket # 1 at 5; # 3 at 4-5.)
26
2. Petitioner filed a petition in this Court seeking habeas corpus
27
review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket # 1 at 1.) The petition contends
28
1 that his pretrial detention plus delays in his arraignment and preliminary
2 hearing violate the federal constitution and elements of state criminal
3 procedure. Petitioner acknowledges that he is not subject to a judgment of
4 conviction in his pending criminal case. (Id.)
5 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner preliminarily reviewed the petition
6 and supporting memorandum. Judge Wilner directed Petitioner to explain
7 why this federal court could properly hear any of his claims at this stage of
8 his ongoing criminal case. (Docket # 12.) Petitioner submitted a
9 memorandum broadly contending that his claims were ripe for federal
10 review. (Docket # 16.)
11 * * *
12 4. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person
13 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas
14 action without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243;
15 see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States
16 District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly
17 not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit
18 proposed order for summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly
19 appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to
20 relief”).
21 5. Petitioner is not entitled to pursue habeas relief under
22 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as he requests. That statute requires a prisoner to
23 establish that s/he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
24 court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A pretrial detainee like Petitioner is not in
25 custody due to a conviction or judgment. Habeas relief under Section 2254
26 is not available.
27
28
1 6. The Court could potentially exercise jurisdiction under
2 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider a habeas petition brought by a pre-trial
3 detainee such as Petitioner. However, federal courts generally abstain
4 from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings until the
5 conviction becomes final after the conclusion of appellate proceedings.
6 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit
7 Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (same).
8 7. Younger abstention “is appropriate if (1) there are ongoing
9 state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state
10 interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to
11 raise federal questions.” Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218,
12 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Sheehee v. Baca, 588 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014)
13 (same). To that end, federal courts recognize that “the States’ interest in
14 administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference
15 is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a
16 court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36,
17 49 (1986).
18 8. There are few exceptions to the Younger rule. A prisoner may
19 seek pre-conviction habeas relief in federal court by demonstrating
20 “extraordinary circumstances” such as “cases of proven harassment or
21 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of
22 obtaining a valid conviction.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir.
23 2012). Another valid exception is when a prisoner raises a “colorable claim
24 of double jeopardy.” Stanley v. Baca, 555 F. App’x 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014)
25 (quoting Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)).
26 9. Petitioner fails to meet these rigorous standards. Petitioner
27 has not been tried or convicted yet, and has not convincingly established
28
1 | that he lacks the opportunity to raise his constitutional claims in his
2 | ongoing state criminal case.! Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 224. Further, his
3 | complaints are too ill-formed to constitute proven claims of bad faith,
4 | extraordinary circumstances by local officials, or impending double
5 | jeopardy violations that warrant federal habeas intervention. Brown, 676
6 | F.3d at 901; Stanley, 555 F. App’x at 708.
7 10. Accordingly, Younger abstention “requires dismissal of a
8 | habeas petition that prematurely” raises allegations of constitutional
9 | injury. Brown, 676 F.3d at 908; Braden, 410 U.S. at 489.
10 Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 Ko ye
14 | Dated: March 7, 2024 :
15 HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
Presented by:
18
19
20 | #4
HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER
21 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24 ———————C
1 Petitioner’s bare contention that he has filed numerous appeals and
25 | habeas petitions in state court regarding his ongoing detention is insufficient to
establish that he has no remedy. Simply losing in state court (especially when
26 | Petitioner acknowledges that he has been involved in protracted competency
proceedings (Petitioner identifies himself in his filings as the “U.S. King Justice
27 | and Jurisdictional King of Spain”) (Docket # 1 at 9)) does not entitle him to
28 federal court review under, or as an exception to, Younger.