Billy Todd Lawson v. David Cook, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 BILLY TODD LAWSON, CASE NO. 3:26-cv-05480-RAJ-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. ORDER DECLINING SERVICE 12 AND TO SHOW CAUSE DAVID COOK, et al., 13 Respondents. 14

15 This action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Grady J. Leupold. On 16 May 6, 2026, Petitioner Billy Todd Lawson, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated 17 this action by filing a federal habeas Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1-1. Having 18 reviewed the Petition, it appears Petitioner’s claims for federal habeas relief are likely barred 19 under the Younger abstention doctrine. Therefore, the Court DECLINES to direct service of the 20 Petition and, instead, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before June 25, 2026, 21 why this action should not be dismissed. 22 // 23 // 24 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee currently housed at the Clark County Jail, alleges that his 3 current detention pursuant to an ongoing state criminal prosecution is unlawful based on issues 4 related to his representation by counsel. Dkt. 1-1 at 6–7.

5 Specifically, Petitioner alleges that his court-appointed attorney withdrew from 6 representation on April 17, 2026, explaining that personal obligations and an overloaded case 7 schedule hindered counsel’s ability to adequately represent Petitioner. Id. at 6. Petitioner further 8 alleges that his prior counsel failed to communicate with him during his incarceration, that he has 9 not received discovery in his criminal case, and that he has remained without legal representation 10 since April 17, 2026. Id. Petitioner alleges that the state trial court held a hearing for appointment 11 of new counsel on April 23, 2026, but no attorney was available at that time. Id. at 7. According 12 to the Petition, the next hearing regarding appointment of counsel was scheduled for May 6, 13 2026. Id. at 7. 14 Based on these allegations, Petitioner contends that his continuing incarceration without

15 legal representation during the pendency of his state criminal proceedings constitutes a “violation 16 of my constitutional rights of the United States.” Id. 17 II. SCREENING STANDARD 18 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 cases (“Habeas Rules”),1 the Court is 19 required to perform a preliminary review of a habeas petition. Rule 4 specifically directs the 20 Court to dismiss a habeas petition before the respondent is ordered to file a response, if it 21 “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 22 relief in the district court.” Dismissal under Rule 4 “is required on procedural grounds, such as 23

24 1 The Habeas Rules are applicable to § 2241 petitions under Rule 1(b), which states “[t]he district court may apply 1 failure to exhaust or untimeliness, or on substantive grounds where the claims are ‘vague,’ 2 ‘conclusory,’ ‘palpably’ incredible,’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.’” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 3 F.4th 1038 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75–76 (1977)). Before 4 dismissing a petition under Rule 4, however, district courts must provide habeas petitioners

5 notice of the grounds for dismissal and an opportunity to be heard. See Race v. Salmonsen, 131 6 F.4th 792, 794 (9th Cir. 2025). 7 III. DISCUSSION 8 Upon review, the Court concludes that federal adjudication of the petition is barred by the 9 abstention doctrine established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–54 (1971). Under Younger, 10 abstention from interference with pending state judicial proceedings is appropriate when: “(1) 11 there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state 12 interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 13 challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of 14 enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th

15 Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th 16 Cir. 2014)). Federal courts, however, do not invoke the Younger abstention if there is a “showing 17 of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 18 inappropriate.” Middlesex Cty Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 19 (1982). 20 All the requirements for Younger abstention appear to be satisfied here. First, Petitioner 21 challenges matters arising from his ongoing state criminal prosecution. See Dkt. 1-1. Second, the 22 ongoing state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. Third, Petitioner has not 23 demonstrated that the state proceedings do not provide an adequate opportunity to raise his

24 constitutional claims. To the contrary, Petitioner acknowledges that the state trial court has held 1 at least one hearing regarding appointment of counsel and another such hearing was scheduled 2 for May 6, 2026. Id. at 6–7. Thus, Petitioner’s own allegations demonstrate that opportunities 3 remain for him to address his concerns in state court. Fourth, the relief Petitioner seeks would 4 interfere with, or otherwise have the practical effect of enjoining, Petitioner’s pending state

5 criminal proceedings. Finally, Petitioner has not shown bad faith, harassment, or other 6 extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention at this time.2 7 Accordingly, if Petitioner intends to proceed in this action, he must show cause why the 8 Petition should not be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DECLINES to direct service of the Petition in 11 accordance with Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules. Instead, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW 12 CAUSE not later than June 25, 2026, why the Petition should not be dismissed under the 13 Younger abstention doctrine. Failure to respond to this Order or adequately address the issues 14 addressed herein by the stated deadline MAY result in a RECOMMENDATION this action be

15 dismissed. 16 17 Dated this 26th day of May, 2026. 18 A 19 20 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 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 23 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 24 “forced” to undertake self-representation in ongoing prosecution) (citing Leveye v. Metro. Pub. Def.’s Off., 73 F.