Belfield v. Spearman

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 28, 2020
• Docket: 4:19-cv-05819
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TONY MAURICE BELFIELD, Case No. 19-cv-05819-HSG 8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS HABEAS PETITION DUE TO 9 v. ONGOING STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS; DENYING REQUEST 10 M.E. SPEARMAN, TO STAY 11 Respondent. Re: Dkt. Nos. 17, 18, 19 12 13 Petitioner, a state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 14 U.S.C. § 2254. Now pending before the Court is respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition due 15 to ongoing state court proceedings. Dkt. No. 17. Petitioner has requested that the Court stay this 16 action, rather than dismiss it. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 17 GRANTS the motion to dismiss and DENIES the requests to stay this action. 18 BACKGROUND 19 In 2016, a Contra Costa County Superior Court jury found petitioner guilty of murder (Cal. 20 Penal Code § 187), shooting at a person from a motor vehicle (Cal. Penal Code § 26100(c)), and 21 unlawfully possessing a firearm (Cal. Penal Code § 29800(a)(1)); and found true allegations that 22 petitioner had personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death (Cal. Penal 23 Code § 12022.53(b)-(d)). The trial court found true allegations that petitioner had suffered two 24 prior strike convictions (Cal. Penal Code § 667(b)-(i)), one prior serious felony conviction (Cal. 25 Penal Code § 667(a)), and two prior prison terms (Cal. Penal Code § 667.5(b)). The trial court 26 sentenced petitioner to 75 years to life. Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 1 at 9. 27 Petitioner appealed and filed a habeas petition in the California Court of Appeal. On 1 discretion as to whether to strike the firearm enhancements, otherwise affirmed the judgment, and 2 denied the habeas petition. Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 1. 3 Petitioner sought direct review and filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. 4 The California Supreme Court denied review on February 27, 2019, and denied the habeas petition 5 on March 13, 2019. Dkt. No. 17, Exs. 2 and 3. 6 On August 5, 2019, the trial court struck the firearm enhancement and resentenced 7 petitioner to 45 years to life. Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 4. On August 28, 2019, petitioner appealed his 8 resentencing in the California Court of Appeal. Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 5. 9 On September 3, 2019, petitioner filed the instant petition.1 Dkt. No. 1. 10 As of June 10, 2020, petitioner’s appeal of his resentencing was still pending. Dkt. No. 17 11 at 1. 12 DISCUSSION 13 Respondent argues that the Court should dismiss this petition pursuant to the Younger 14 abstention principle. 15 The Younger abstention principle provides that, under principles of comity and federalism, 16 a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive 17 or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43- 18 54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: 19 (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important 20 state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional 21 issue. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 22 A fourth requirement has also been articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court action 23 would enjoin the state proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with 24 the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 25 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing cases). 26 1 The Court affords petitioner application of the mailbox rule as to the filing of his habeas petition. 27 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 275-76 (1988) (pro se prisoner filing is dated from the date 1 Respondent argues that petitioner’s appeal of his resentencing is an ongoing state court 2 criminal proceeding that implicates important state interests, that petitioner will have a chance to 3 raise these claims once his amended judgment becomes final because the resentencing results in a 4 new judgment and a federal habeas petition challenging the new judgment is not considered 5 second or successive, and because the relief requested in this action would enjoin the ongoing state 6 court proceedings. Dkt. No. 17. 7 In response, petitioner requests that the Court stay his case until the conclusion of state 8 court proceedings. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. 9 The Court agrees that Younger abstention is appropriate here. 10 First, state proceedings are ongoing. State proceedings are ongoing if they are initiated 11 before any proceedings of substance on the merits have taken place in federal court. Nationwide 12 Biweekly Administration, Inc. v. Owen, 873 F.3d 716, 728 (9th Cir. 2017). The rationale of 13 Younger applies throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state 14 court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. See Huffman v. 15 Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11 (1975); Dubinka v. Judges of the Sup. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 16 (9th Cir. 1994) (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention decision, state court 17 proceedings still considered pending). On August 28, 2019, petitioner appealed his resentencing 18 in the California Court of Appeal, Dkt. No. 17, Ex. 5, and filed this petition days later. 19 Petitioner’s state court appeal is still pending. While an order to show cause has issued in this 20 action, no proceedings of substance, i.e. the filing of an answer, have yet taken place. 21 Second, state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. 22 Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“states’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems 23 free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should 24 influence a court considering equitable types of relief”) (holding that federal bankruptcy court 25 should not invalidate results of state criminal proceedings). 26 Third, the state proceedings afford petitioner adequate opportunity to raise the 27 constitutional issues in that he is not precluded from raising the same challenges to the judgement 1 Finally, the practical effect of granting habeas relief in this action would interfere with the 2 || ongoing state court proceedings in that it would imply the invalidity of the conviction and require 3 || this Court to make findings about whether the underlying trial violated petitioner’s constitutional 4 rights. See also Phillips v. Neuschmid, C No. 19-cv-03225 RGK, 2019 WL 6312573, at *2 (C.D. 5 Cal. Oct. 18, 2019) (listing cases where federal courts abstained under Younger because of 6 || ongoing resentencing proceedings in state court). 7 Because Younger abstention is appropriate, the Court may not stay this case pending the 8 || resolution of the state court proceedings, as requested by plaintiff. Accordingly, respondent’s 9 motion to dismiss the instant petition due to ongoing state court proceedings is GRANTED. DKkt. 10 || No. 17. The dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner filing a new petition when all state court 11 proceedings arising out of the resentencing are concluded.” Petitioner’s requests to stay this case 12 || are DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. 5 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, respondent’s motion to dismiss the instant petition due to 15 ongoing state court proceedings is GRANTED. Dkt. No. 17. Petitioner’s request to stay this case 16 || is DENIED. Dkt. Nos. 18, 19. The instant petition is DISMISSED without prejudice to filing a 3 17 new petition when all state court proceedings arising out of the resentencing are concluded. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || Dated: 9/28/2020 20 Absurd 5 Mbt) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 ? Petitioner is cautioned that there is a one-year statute of limitations for the filing of a federal 2g || petition for writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). Once the state court proceedings are concluded, petitioner should not delay in returning to federal court with any new petition.