Apostle and Prophet Yashua v. Pastor Melissa Scott

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 27, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-08987
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 APOSTLE AND PROPHET Case No. CV 23-08987 ODW (RAO) 12 YASHUA,

13 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE

15 PASTOR MELISSA SCOTT, 16 Respondent. 17 18 On October 23, 2023, Apostle and Prophet Yashua, also known as Trevor 19 Piotrowski (“Petitioner”), a Los Angeles County pretrial detainee proceeding pro 20 se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) While the Petition is largely unintelligible, Petitioner 22 appears to challenge a pending state charge of violating a restraining order. Petition 23 at 3. Because Petitioner’s criminal case is ongoing and no judgment entered, the 24 Court must abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45–46 (1971), and the 25 Petition must be dismissed without prejudice. 26 *** 27 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 28 District Courts, the Court may summarily dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears 1 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief 2 in the district court . . . .” See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 3 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 4 (“AEDPA”), federal review is allowed on behalf of “a person in custody pursuant 5 to a judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation 6 of the Constitution” or other provision of federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Here, 7 Petitioner is a pretrial detainee who has not been criminally convicted. There is no 8 judgment for this federal court to review. 9 Further, because of the existence of the ongoing criminal case, Younger 10 abstention is appropriate. Federal courts generally abstain from interfering in 11 ongoing state proceedings until the conviction becomes final after the conclusion of 12 appellate proceedings. Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46. Abstention under Younger is 13 warranted where three criteria are met: (1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) 14 the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings 15 provide an adequate opportunity to litigate the petitioner’s federal constitutional 16 claims. Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 17 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court of State of Cal., 23 F.3d 218, 223 18 (9th Cir. 1994). A petitioner may avoid application of the Younger doctrine by 19 demonstrating that there is bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary 20 circumstance where irreparable injury can be shown. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 21 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). 22 First, this Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the Los Angeles County 23 Superior Court, Case No. GA 109360, People v. Trevor Daniel Piotrowski (filed 24 Dec. 20, 2022),1 which shows that Petitioner’s criminal matter remains pending. 25 See https://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/Selection.aspx. The 26 27 1 See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (district court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of public record 28 including documents on file in federal or state courts). 1 || pendency of the matter before the superior court weighs in favor of abstention. See 2 || Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (only in the most unusual 3 || circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of 4 || injunction or habeas corpus until after a judgment has been appealed from, and the 5 || case has been concluded in state courts). 6 Second, the state proceedings implicate important state interests, particularly 7 || the State of California’s interest in the order and integrity of its criminal 8 || proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he States’ interest 9 || in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one 10 || of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering 11 || equitable types of relief.”). Accordingly, the second Younger factor weighs in favor 12 || of abstention. 13 Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise any federal habeas 14 || claims in his pending state proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 15 |} 1, 15, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987) (federal court should assume that state 16 || procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional 17 || claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). Accordingly, 18 || the final Younger factor also weighs in favor of abstention. 19 Finally, Petitioner has not alleged facts showing bad faith, harassment, 20 || extraordinary circumstances, or irreparable injury. Because all three criteria for 21 || abstention under Younger apply and because there is no compelling reason 22 || warranting federal intervention at this time, the Court must abstain from interfering 23 || with Petitioner’s pending state criminal proceedings. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 24 || 435. Ne 25 || DATED: October 27, 2023 aa

‘OTISD. WRIGHT OOOSOSCS~™S 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28