Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Brandon Leon Bibbs, Petitioner v. Alex Villanueva, Sheriff, Los Angeles County, California
Supreme Court briefFeb 14, 2022
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED
NOV 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
BRANDON BIBBS,
No.
20-56085
v.
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK
Central District of California,
Los Angeles
ALEX VILLANUEVA, Sheriff,
ORDER
Petitioner-Appellant,
Respondent-Appellee.
Before:
NGUYEN and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
The request for a certificate of appealability 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); Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d
816, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2009).
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
DENIED.
V
<J
\
<
2
1
2
3
4
JS-6
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
BRANDON LEON BIBBS,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
Case No. CV 20-8728-JVS (KK)
v.
JUDGMENT
ALEX VILLANUEVA,
Respondent.
14
15
16
17
18
Pursuant to the Order Summarily Dismissing Action With Prejudice, IT IS
HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: October 01, 2020
HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
United States District Judge
Cas3 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document4 Filed 10/01/20 Page lot7 PagelD#:16
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
Petitioner,
11
ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING
ACTION WITH PREJUDICE
v.
12
13
Case No. CV 20-8728-JVS (KK)
BRANDON LEON BIBBS,
ALEX VILLANUEVA,
14
Respondent.
15
16
17
I.
18
INTRODUCTION
19
Pro se petitioner Brandon Leon Bibbs (“Petitioner”), a pretrial detainee
20
currently confined at Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles County, filed a Petition for
21
Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody (“Petition”). ECF Docket No.
22
(“Dkt.”) 1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court summarily DISMISSES this
23
action with prejudice.
24
III
III
III
III
III
25
26
27
28
Cas 5 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 2 of 7 PagelD#:17
1
II.
2
BACKGROUND
3
A.
PREVIOUS PETITION IN CV 20-4222-JVS (KK)
4
On May 28, 2020, Petitioner constructively filed1 a First Amended Petition in
5
this Court in Case No. CV 20-4222-JVS (KK). Bibbs v. United States, CV 20-4222-
6
JVS (KK), Dkt. 8, FAP. Petitioner alleged he is “currently in custody of the Los
7
Angeles Sheriffs Department, charged with 10 counts of robbery with a firearm, by
8
information, awaiting trial in the Superior Court of Los Angeles (Super Ct. Case no.
9
VA134204) ” Id. at 2. Petitioner named Sherriff Alex Villanueva as respondent and
10
sought “emergency temporary release” pursuant to “U.S. v. Daniels. 2020 U.S. Dist.
11
LEXIS 63365”, Section 2241, and the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth
12
Amendments, based on the following claims: (1) “L.A. County Jailps] overpopulation
13
with COVID-19 patients”; (2) “unsanitary jail conditions”; (3) “inadequacy of courts
14
and counsel”; and (4) “safe release conditions.” Id, at 1. Petitioner appeared to argue
15
the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to Younger2 was warranted based on
16
“the hinderance of courts and counsel, that he is horrified by unsanitary jail
17
conditions in furtherance to the uprising global pandemic, stemming to possible
18
sudden death or delay ....” Id* at 2.
On July 17, 2020, the Court summarily dismissed the action with prejudice
19
20
because federal court abstention was required pursuant to Younger and entered
21
Judgment accordingly. Dkts. 11,12.
22
B.
CURRENT PETITION
23
On September 15, 2020, Petitioner filed the instant Petition again challenging
24
his pretrial detention by the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department pending trial in Los
25
Angeles County Superior Court Case No. VA134204. Dkt 1 at 2-3. Petitioner sets
26
l Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading
27
28
to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is
signed. Roberts v. Marshall. 627 F.3a 768, 770 n.l (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
2 Younger v. Harris. 401 U.S. 37, 43-45, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971).
2
Cas 5 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 3 of 7 PagelD#:18
1
forth the following two claims for relief: (1) Petitioner was “illegally committed” in
2
violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments when he was
3
arraigned on May 31, 2016 without a “filed felony complaint”, an unverified second
4
amended felony complaint was filed on December 13,2016, he was held to answer
5
without an endorsed order on January 17, 2017, and the prosecution filed an
6
information charging him on January 31,2017; and (2) Petitioner was “illegally
7
arrested” in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when he was
8
“brought to custody in the Los Angele Sheriffs Department” on April 22, 2016
9
without an arrest report or information. Id* at 5-6.
10
III.
11
DISCUSSION
12
THE PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO
13
INTERFERE WITH PENDING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS
14
15
A.
APPLICABLE LAW
When a state prisoner “is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical
16
imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entided to
17
immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal
18
remedy is a writ of habeas corpus”. Preiser v. Rodriguez. 411 U.S. 475, 500, 93 S. Ct.
19
1827,1841, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973). “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in [28
20
U.S.C. § 2241] is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody
21
pursuant to a state court judgment [such as] a defendant in pre-trial detentionf.]”
22
Stow v. Murashige. 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting White v. Lambert, 370
23
F.3d 1002,1006 (9th Cir. 2004)) (holding pretrial detainee’s request for federal habeas
24
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) is properly brought); Rosenbalm v. Mendocino
25
Superior Court. No. C 06-7412 SI(PR), 2007 WL 878522, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21,
26
2007) (“This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
27
U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) by a person who is in custody but not yet convicted or
28
sentenced.”).
3
Cas 5 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 4 of 7 PagelD#:19
Principles of comity and federalism, however, require federal courts to abstain
1
2
from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris. 401
3
U.S. 37,43-45, 91 S. Ct. 746,27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). The Ninth Circuit has held
4
abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2)
5
the proceeding “implicate^] important state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate
6
opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges”; and (4) the
7
requested relief “seekfs] to enjoin” or has “the practical effect of enjoining” the
8
ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v. Hennessv. 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir.
9
2018) (citing ReadvLink Healthcare. Inc, v. State Comp. Ins. Fund. 754 F.3d 754, 758
10
(9th Cir. 2014)).
11
“Extraordinary circumstances,” may warrant exception to the “fundamental
12
policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions.” Younger. 401
13
U.S. at 46, 53-54; Brown v. Ahern. 676 F.3d 899, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding
14
“abstention principles. .. prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction
15
habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense
16
unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant
17
federal intervention.” (citing Carden v. State of Mont.. 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir.
18
1980))). To demonstrate an exception to Younger, a petitioner must show: (1) he
19
would suffer irreparable harm that is “both great and immediate” if the federal court
20
declines jurisdiction; (2) there is bad faith or harassment, on the part of state, in
21
prosecuting him; or (3) the state court system is biased against Petitioner’s federal
22
claim. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n. 457 U.S.
23
423, 432,102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982): Kugler v. Helfant. 421 U.S. 117,
24
124-25, 95 S. Ct. 1524, 44 L. Ed.
25
Carden. 626 F.2d at 83).
III
27 III
28 III
26
4
Cas 5 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 5 of 7 PagelD#:20
1
B.
ANALYSIS
2
As an initial matter, Petitioner admits his criminal case is “still pending” in the
3
Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 2-3. Petitioner is, therefore, a pretrial
4
detainee. Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) governs this case. Stow. 389 F.3d at
5
886.
6
Petitioner challenges various aspects of his ongoing state criminal proceedings
•7
such as his arrest and arraignment. Dkt. 1 at 5-6. The Court, therefore, finds
8
abstention is appropriate as all four Younger abstention criteria are satisfied. First,
9
Petitioner has an “ongoing state judicial proceeding” as he states his criminal case for
10
robbery with a firearm is “still pending” in the Los Angeles Superior Court Case No.
11
VA134204. Id. at 2. Second, the resolution of state criminal proceedings clearly
12
implicates important state interests. S££ Kelly v. Robinson. 479 U.S. 36, 49,107 S. Ct.
13
353, 93 L. Ed. 2d 216 (1986) (“The right to formulate and enforce penal sanctions is
14
an important aspect of the sovereignty retained by the States.” (citing Younger. 401
15
U.S. at 46)); see also Middlesex. 457 U.S. at 432 (“Proceedings necessary for the
16
vindication of important state policies or for the functioning of the state judicial
17
system also evidence the state's substantial interest in the litigation.”). Third,
18
Petitioner has “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional
19
challenges,” either at the trial or appellate level, and there appears nothing preventing
20
Petitioner from doing so.3 See Arevalo. 882 F.3d at 765. Fourth, habeas relief from
21
this Court in the form of release would have the “practical effect” of enjoining the
22
state court proceedings, particularly the state court’s bail determination. See Bowell v.
23
24
25
26
27
28
3 Petitioner, in fact, filed habeas petitions in the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
California Court of Appeal, and California Supreme Court challenging his pretrial
detention. Dkt. 1 at 3-5. In addition, Petitioner does not allege his bail hearing was
constitutionally inadequate, nor has Petitioner shown he has exhausted state remedies
regarding any claims related to his bail hearing. Cfi Arevalo v. Hennessv. 882 F.3d
763, 76o (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that where Petitioner was challenging a
constitutionally inadequate bailhearing in state court and had “properly exhausted his
state remedies as to his bail hearing,... Younger abstention is not appropriate in this
case because the issues raised in the bail appeal are distinct from the underlying
criminal prosecution and would not interfere with it.”).
5
Cas 2 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 6 of 7 PagelD#:21
1
Paramo. No. CV-17-9313-TJH (MAA), 2018 WL 4735721, at *4 (CD. Cal. Aug. 6,
2
2018). report and recommendation adopted. No. CV-17-9313-TJH-MAA, 2018 WL
3
4698250 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018). certificate of appealability denied. No. 18-56319,
4
2018 WL 6978341 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) (finding if the court were to grant
5
emergency release, “it necessarily would entail interference because the ongoing state
6
proceeding effectively would be terminated” (citing San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber
7
of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose. 546 F.3d 1087,1095-96
8
(9th Cir. 2008) (finding interference under Younger where the federal relief sought
9
would “involve the federal courts in terminating or truncating” the ongoing state
10
proceeding (citation omitted)))).
11
Moreover, Petitioner once again fails to identify any “extraordinary
12
circumstances” warranting the Court’s interference as an exception under Younger.
13
Petitioner does not allege he has been the subject of harassment or that that his
14
continued prosecution is in bad faith and without hope of obtaining a valid
15
conviction. See Brown. 676 F.3d at 901. Petitioner’s various allegations, even
16
liberally construed, are conclusory and unsupported. See Collins v. People of the
17
State of California. No. CV-16-03703-DMG (KS), 2016 WL 4161973, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
18
Aug. 1, 2016) (“Federal intervention cannot be predicated on conclusory allegations
19
and Petitioner provides no proof that his continued prosecution by the state actually
20
stems from bad faith and harassment and not some other basis.”). Furthermore,
21
Petitioner has not shown he will suffer “irreparable injury” by waiting until the state
22
court proceedings are concluded to bring his claims in this Court. See Younger. 401
23
U.S. at 46 (holding “irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ‘both great and
24
immediate’”).
25
Accordingly, federal court abstention is required. Younger. 401 U.S. at 53-54.
26
The action is, therefore, subject to dismissal.
27
III
III
28
6
Cas 5 2:20-cv-08728-JVS-KK Document 4 Filed 10/01/20 Page 7 of 7 PagelD#:22
1
IV.
2
ORDER
3
4
Accordingly, this Court ORDERS Judgment be entered summarily
DISMISSING this action with prejudice.
5
6
7
Dated: October 01, 2020
HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
United States District Judge
8
9
Presented by:
10
11
12
13
14
HONORABLE KENLY KIYA KATO
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
r
7
T
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEAL - SECOND DIST.
DIVISION SEVEN
FILED
Jun 17, 2020
DANIEL P. POTTER, Clerk
B306269
In re
MELISSA URIBE
(Super. Ct. No. VA134204)
BRANDON BIBBS
ORDER
on Habeas Corpus.
THE COURT:
The court has read and considered the petition for writ of
habeas corpus filed on June 12, 2020. The petition is denied.
FEUER, J.
DILLOFSTj! (Assigned)
Deputy Clerk
°oPY
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT/NORWALK COURT
1
2
3
BRANDON LEON BIBBS
4
Petitioner
5
6
vs.
7
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
Respondent
) Case No. VA134204
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JUN 18 20; 0
Sherri R. Carter, Executive
)fficer/Clerk
By Jacqueline Sanders Deputy
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
9
10
li
12
13
14
15
16
THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS filed on February 20,2020 is denied.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on February 20, 2020. Petitioner
complains that there is a defect in the felony complaint and amended complaint. A Writ of
Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary procedure which is available when there otherwise is no
adequate remedy. In this matter, Petitioner’s case is still pending and his guilt has not yet been
adjudicated. Petitioner has an adequate remedy in that he may file the appropriate motion in
the court in which the case is pending and seek relief in that court. Petitioner has failed to
establish a prima facie case for relief. The Petition is denied.
17
18
19
Dated: June 18,2020
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RAUL A. SAHAGUN
RAUL A. SAHAGUN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
t
SUPREME COURT
FILED
V-
SEP 9 2020
Jorge Navarrete Clerk
S263438
Deputy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
En Banc
In re BRANDON LEON BIBBS on Habeas Corpus.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
CANTIL-SAKAUYE
ChiefJustice
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.