Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Pedro Rodriguez, Petitioner v. San Diego County, California, et al.
Supreme Court briefAug 14, 2018
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Case: 17-55267, 11/28/2017, ID: 10670069, DktEntry: 18, Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
NOV 282017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MATT
GRECO, District Attorney,
No. 17-55267
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD
Southern District of California,
San Diego
[I)
i
Respondents-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
This appeal is from the denial of appellant's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and
subsequent Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. The request for a
certificate of appealability (Docket Entry No. 17) is denied because appellant has
not shown that "jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states
a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling."
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2);
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,140-41 (2012); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.
322, 327 (2003); United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015),
cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2462 (2016); Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.
1993) (order).
Case: 17-55267, 11/28/2017, ID: 10670069, DktEntry: 18, Page 2 of 2
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
DENIED.
2
17-55267
Case 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PagelD.21 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Petitioner,
12
13
V.
14
DA MATT GRECO, et al.,
15
Case No.: 16cv3131 BAS (MDD)
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,
ORDER DISMISSING CASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Respondent.
16
17
18
19
20
Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding pro Se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
FAILURE TO SATSIFY FILING FEE REOUIREMENT
Petitioner has failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee and has failed to move to proceed in
21
forma pauperis. This Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00
22
filing fee or qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. See Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254.
23
ABSTENTION
24
25
Further, the Petition must be dismissed because it is clear that this Court is barred
from consideration of his claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v.
26 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with
27 ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45-46; see
28
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assn, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982)
16cv3131 BAS (MDD)
Case 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PagelD.22 Page 2 of 3
1 (Younger "espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with
2
pending state judicial proceedings"). These concerns are particularly important in the
3
habeas context where a state prisoner's conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby
4
rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir.
5 1983).
6
Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when:
7
(1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important
8
state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the
9
federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass 'n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th
10
Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. At the time Petitioner filed the
11
instant Petition, he admits his criminal case is currently pending in state court. (See Pet.
12 at 1, ECF No. 1.) Thus Petitioner's criminal case is still ongoing in the state courts.
13
Further, there is no question that the state criminal proceedings involve important state
14 interests.
15
Finally, Petitioner has failed to show that he has not been afforded an adequate
16 opportunity to raise the federal issues on direct appeal. Petitioner offers nothing to
17
support a contention that the state courts do not provide him an adequate opportunity to
18
raise his claims, and this Court specifically rejects such an argument. Indeed, Petitioner's
19
claims that documents supporting the charges against him were forged are the type of
20
claims that are normally resolved at a state court trial. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764,
21
764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) ("[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled
22
to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury
23
comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case concluded in the state courts.")
24
CONCLUSION
25
Because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances exist
26
which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with ongoing
27
state criminal proceedings, his Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Juidice v.
28
2
16cv3131 BAS (MDD)
Case 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 2 Filed 01/12/17 PagelD.23 Page 3 of 3
1
Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may
2
not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action).
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
6
DATED: January 12, 2017
5W( 90"
H4n. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
16cv3131 BAS (MDD)
Case 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 12 Filed 03/13/17 PagelD.241 Page 1 of 2
FILED
MAR 13 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
V.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO and MATT
GRECO, District Attorney,
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 17-55267
D.C. No.
3:16-cv-03 131-BAS-MDD
Southern District of California,
San Diego
1919m
,
Respondents-Appellees.
Before: Peter L. Shaw, Appellate Commissioner.
The district court has not issued or declined to issue a certificate of
appealability in this appeal, which appears to arise under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Accordingly, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of
granting or denying a certificate of appealability at the court's earliest convenience.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d
1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 403 (9th Cir.
1993) (certificate of probable cause to appeal necessary to appeal denial of postjudgment motion for relief under Rule 60(b)); United States v. Winkles, 795 F.3d
1134, 1143 (9th Cir. 2015), cert. denied 136 S. Ct. 2462 (2016).
JWfPro Se
Case 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 12 Filed 03/13/17 PagelD.242 Page 2 of 2
If the district court issues a certificate of appealability, the court should
specify which issue or issues meet the required showing. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(3); Asrar, 116 F.3d at 1270. Under Asrar, if the district court declines to
issue a certificate, the court should state its reasons why a certificate of
appealability should not be granted, and the clerk of the district court shall forward
to this court the record with the order denying the certificate. See Asrar, 116 F.3d
at 1270. A briefing schedule will be established after resolution of the certificate
of appealability issue.
The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the district court.
JW/ProSe
2
CasU 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 14 Filed 05/08/17 PagelD.246 Page 1 of 5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
PEDRO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
12
13
14'
15
Case No. 16-cv-03131-13AS-M])D
V.
DA MATT GRECO, et al.,
ORDER DECLINING TO ISSUE
CERTIFICATE OF
APPEALABILITY
FECF Nos. 11, 121
L
a
Respondents.
16
17
Petitioner Pedro Rodriguez, a state prisoner proceeding pro Se, filed a Petition
18
for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 12, 2017, the Court
19
dismissed the Petition for two reasons. (ECF No. 2.) First, the Court noted Petitioner
20
had failed to pay the filing fee and had not moved to proceed informapauperis. (Id.)
21
Second, the Court concluded it is barred from considering Petitioner's claims under
22
the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The
23
Court reasoned this doctrine bars consideration of Petitioner's claims because his
24
criminal case is still ongoing in state court, the state criminal proceedings involve
25
important state interests, and Petitioner fails to demonstrate he has not been afforded
26 an adequate opportunity to raise his claims in the state proceeding. (Id.) Further,
27
Petitioner had not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances that would relieve the
28
Court of its obligation to abstain from ongoing state criminal proceedings. (id.) Thus,
Cas 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 14 Filed 05/08/17 PagelD.247 Page 2 of S
1 the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice. (Id.) The Court later denied a
2
motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF
3 No. 8)
4
On February 27, 2017, Petitioner appealed the Court's dismissal of his
5
Petition. (ECF No. 9.) He also filed on March 1, 2017, a motion for a certificate of
6 appealability. (ECF No. 11.) On March 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit issued an order
7
(i) noting that this Court had not issued or declined to issue a certificate of
8
appealability and (ii) remanding this case "for the limited purpose of granting or
9
denying a certificate of appealability." (ECF No. 12.)
10
ii
I.
Appeal from Order Dismissing Petition
12
A petitioner may not appeal "the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in
13
which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court"
14
unless "a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability." 28 U.S.C. §
15
2253(c). "A certificate of appealability may issue.
16
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. In Slack v. McDaniel,
.
.
only if the applicant has made
17 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000), the Supreme Court articulated a two-part standard
18
governing the issuance of a certificate of appealability when a district court denies a
19
habeas petition on procedural grounds. The Court stated:
20
When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds
without reaching the prisoner's underlying constitutional claim, a
[certificate of appealability] should issue when the prisoner shows, at
least, [ 1 ] that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and [2] that
jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.
21
22
23
24
25
Id.
26
Here, the Court principally dismissed the Petition because the Court conclIl
27
it is barred from considering Petitioner's claims based on Younger abstention. (ECF
28 No. 2 at 2:25-3:2.) Given that the Court did not reach the merits of Petitioner's
Cas 3:16-cv03131-BAS-MDD Document 14 Filed 05/08/17 PagelD.248 Page 3 of 5
1
claims, the Court's decision constitutes a dismissal on procedural grounds. See Slack,
2
529 U.S. at 484; accord Strickland v. Wilson, 399 F. App'x 391,95 (l0thCir. 20 10)
3
(noting dismissal based on Younger abstention was a dismissal on procedural grounds
4
for certificate of appealability purposes). In applying the two-part standard
5
mentioned above, the Court finds issuing a certificate of appealability from its order
6
of dismissal is not appropriate. Reasonable jurists would not find debatable both
7
whether (1) the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and
8
(2) this Court's procedural ruling was correct. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Thus, the
9 Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability from its order dismissing the
io
Petition without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
11
12
II. Appeal from Order Denying Rule 60(b) Motion
13
In Lynch v. Blodgett, 999 F.2d 401, 402-03 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit
14
held that a certificate of probable cause—the predecessor to the certificate of
15
appealability under the former version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253—was required to appeal
16
the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas proceeding. Since the
17
revision to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
18
Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"), the Ninth Circuit has only "implicitly held" that a petitioner
19
must now obtain a certificate of appealability in this context. See United States v.
20
Winkles, 795 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir. 2015) (discussing Langford v. Day, 134 F.3d
21
1381 (9th Cir. 1998)). That said, in United States v. Winkles, the Ninth Circuit held a
22
petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability to appeal the denial of a Rule
23
60(b) motion in an analogous context—a habeas proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
24
795 F.3d at 1143. In that context, the court held a certificate should issue "if the
25
movant shows that (1) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district
26
court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 60(b) motion and (2) jurists of reason
27
would find it debatable whether the underlying section 2255 motion states a valid
28
claim of the denial of a constitutional right." Id.
3:16-cv-03131-BAS4MDD Document 14 r-iled 05/08/17 PagelD.249 Page 4 of 5
C
1
Several district courts have since concluded the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in
2
Winkles for habeas proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is equally applicable to those
3
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. E.g., Sakellaridis v. Davey, No. 15-cv-01154-DAD-EPG-
4
HC, 2017 WL 272216, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017); Adams v. Hedgpeth, No. LA
5
CV- 1103 852 VBF-FFM, 2016 WL 4035607, at *14 (C.D. Cal. June 8,2016); Ceja
6
v. Scribner, No. LA CV 07-00606-VBF-KES, 2016 WL 3996152, at *8 (C.D. Cal.
7
Jan. 19, 2016). This Court agrees. In Winkles, the Ninth Circuit noted that "section
8
2255 'was intended to mirror § 2254 in operative effect,' and that the language used
9 in sections 2253(c)(1)(A) and (c)(1)(B) is functionally identical." 795 F.3d at 1141
10
(quoting Jones v. Ryan, 733 F.3d 825, 830 n.1 (9th Cir. 2013)). Accordingly, the
11
Court will adapt the standard from Winkles for § 2255 proceedings and apply it to the
12
Court's denial of Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion in this § 2254 proceeding.
13
The Court denied Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion because it concluded he had
14
not demonstrated the requisite extraordinary circumstances for relief. (ECF No. 8 at
15
2:14-21.) The Court finds Petitioner has not demonstrated that (1) jurists of reason
16
would find it debatable whether this Court abused its discretion in denying the Rule
17
60(b) motion, and (2) jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the Petition
18
states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right. See Winkles, 795 F.3d at
19
1143. Consequently, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability from its
20
order denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion.
21
I-
22
/I
23
I-
24
/I
25
I-
26
/I
27
II
28
II
Cas 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD Document 14 Filed 05/08/17 PageD.250 Page 5 of 5
1
III. Conclusion
2
In sum, in response to the Ninth Circuit's order (ECF No. 12), the Court
3
declines to issue a certificate of appealability from either (a) its order dismissing the
4
Petition without prejudice or (b) its order denying Petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion.
5
The Court therefore also DENIES Petitioner's motion for a certificate of
6
appealability (ECF No. 11).
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DATED: May 8,2017•
44a1t
lioii.ViiThia Bashant
United States District Judge
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
MAY 31 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
PEDRO RODfflGUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
V.
No. 17-55267
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-03131-BAS-MDD
Southern District of California,
San Diego
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; MATT
GRECO, District Attorney,
Respondents-Appellees.
Before: W. FLETCHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Appellant has filed a combined motion for reconsideration and motion for
reconsideration en banc (Docket Entry No. 23).
The motion for reconsideration is denied and the motion for reconsideration
en banc is denied on behalf of the court. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10; 9th Cir. Gen. Ord.
6.11.
No further filings will be entertained in this closed case.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.