Billy Todd Lawson v. David Cook, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CASE NO. 3:26-cv-05480-RAJ-GJL Petitioner, v. ORDER DECLINING SERVICE DAVID COOK, et al., Respondents.

This action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. On May 6, 2026, Petitioner Billy Todd Lawson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action by filing a federal habeas Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1-1. Having reviewed the Petition, it appears Petitioner’s claims for federal habeas relief are likely barred under the Younger abstention doctrine. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to direct service of the Petition and, instead, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before June 25, 2026, why this action should not be dismissed. // // Petitioner, a pretrial detainee currently housed at the Clark County Jail, alleges that his current detention pursuant to an ongoing state criminal prosecution is unlawful based on issues related to his representation by counsel. Dkt. 1-1 at 6–7.

Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his court-appointed attorney withdrew from representation on April 17, 2026, explaining that personal obligations and an overloaded case schedule hindered counsel’s ability to adequately represent Petitioner. Id. at 6. Petitioner further alleges that his prior counsel failed to communicate with him during his incarceration, that he has not received discovery in his criminal case, and that he has remained without legal representation since April 17, 2026. Id. Petitioner alleges that the state trial court held a hearing for appointment of new counsel on April 23, 2026, but no attorney was available at that time. Id. at 7. According to the Petition, the next hearing regarding appointment of counsel was scheduled for May 6, 2026. Id. at 7. Based on these allegations, Petitioner contends that his continuing incarceration without

legal representation during the pendency of his state criminal proceedings constitutes a “violation of my constitutional rights of the United States.” Id. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases (“Habeas Rules”),1 the Court is required to perform a preliminary review of a habeas petition. Rule 4 specifically directs the Court to dismiss a habeas petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Dismissal under Rule 4 “is required on procedural grounds, such as

1 The Habeas Rules are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), which states “[t]he district court may apply failure to exhaust or untimeliness, or on substantive grounds where the claims are ‘vague,’ ‘conclusory,’ ‘palpably’ incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1977)). Before dismissing a petition under Rule 4, however, district courts must provide habeas petitioners

notice of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard. See Race v. Salmonsen, 131 F.4th 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2025). Upon review, the Court concludes that federal adjudication of the petition is barred by the abstention doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971). Under Younger, abstention from interference with pending state judicial proceedings is appropriate when: “(1) there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th

Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). Federal courts, however, do not invoke the Younger abstention if there is a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex Cty Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). All the requirements for Younger abstention appear to be satisfied here. First, Petitioner challenges matters arising from his ongoing state criminal prosecution. See Dkt. 1-1. Second, the ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. Third, Petitioner has not demonstrated that the state proceedings do not provide an adequate opportunity to raise his

constitutional claims. To the contrary, Petitioner acknowledges that the state trial court has held at least one hearing regarding appointment of counsel and another such hearing was scheduled for May 6, 2026. Id. at 6–7. Thus, Petitioner’s own allegations demonstrate that opportunities remain for him to address his concerns in state court. Fourth, the relief Petitioner seeks would interfere with, or otherwise have the practical effect of enjoining, Petitioner’s pending state

criminal proceedings. Finally, Petitioner has not shown bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention at this time.2 Accordingly, if Petitioner intends to proceed in this action, he must show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine. For the reasons set forth above, the Court DECLINES to direct service of the Petition in accordance with Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules. Instead, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE not later than June 25, 2026, why the Petition should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine. Failure to respond to this Order or adequately address the issues addressed herein by the stated deadline MAY result in a RECOMMENDATION this action be

dismissed. Dated this 26th day of May, 2026. A Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 2 See Smith v. Cty. of Santa Clara, 223 F. App’x 701, 702 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that, under Younger, a pretrial detainees must raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his ongoing criminal proceeding, not in a separate federal action); Rayner v. City of Louisville Metro, No. CIV A 3:09-CV-P488-M, 2009 WL 2382434 (W.D. Ky. July 30, 2009) (applying Younger abstention to ineffective assistance of counsel claim alleging criminal defendant was “forced” to undertake self-representation in ongoing prosecution) (citing Leveye v. Metro. Pub. Def.’s Off., 73 F.