Ciro Heriberto Gonzalez-Huitron v. Adrienne Parry

Opinion

5 CIRO HERIBERTO GONZALEZ- Case No. 3:26-cv-00147-ART-CLB HUITRON, Petitioner, 7 v.

9 Respondents.

10 11 Pro se Petitioner Ciro Heriberto Gonzalez-Huitron has filed a Petition for 12 Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. This habeas matter 13 is before the Court for initial review under the Rules Governing Section 2254 14 Cases.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the petition is 15 unexhausted and federal abstention is required. 16 Background 17 Gonzalez-Huitron is a pretrial detainee in custody at the Elko County Jail 18 in Elko, Nevada. ECF No. 1 at 1. In his petition, Gonzalez-Huitron requests 19 immediate dismissal of all charges and immediate release from custody. Id. at 9. 20 Gonzalez-Huitron asserts that has been in custody since April 2025 and that he 21 has had lengthy and protracted competency assessments delaying his case. Id. 22 at 7. In addition, he alleges that he has been unlawfully charged and that his 23 case has been further delayed due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Id. He 24 alleges that his prolonged pretrial detention violates his Sixth Amendment right 25 to a speedy trial and his Fifth Amendment due process rights. Id. at 7-9. 26

27 1 All references to a “Habeas Rule” or the “Habeas Rules” in this order identify the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 28 1 Discussion 2 Pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the assigned judge must examine the habeas 3 petition and order a response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not 4 entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019). 5 This rule allows courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, 6 vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. 7 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1128 (9th Cir. 1998); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 8 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). 9 Here, the petition improperly seeks federal judicial intervention in a 10 pending state criminal proceeding. The Younger abstention doctrine prevents 11 federal courts from enjoining pending state court criminal proceedings, even if 12 there is an allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary 13 circumstance that creates a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 14 U.S. 37, 53–54 (1971). The United States Supreme Court has instructed that 15 “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a parallel, pending state 16 criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) 17 (emphasis added); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (federal 18 courts generally abstain from granting any relief that would interfere with 19 pending state judicial proceedings). Irreparable injury does not exist if the threat 20 to a petitioner’s federally protected rights may be eliminated through his or her 21 defense of the criminal case. Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. 22 In addition, it appears that his claims are wholly unexhausted. A state 23 defendant seeking federal habeas relief must fully exhaust his state court 24 remedies before presenting his constitutional claims to the federal courts. E.g., 25 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 764–67 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that California 26 petitioner properly exhausted his state remedies by filing two motions in the trial 27 court, a habeas petition in the court of appeal, and a habeas petition in the state 28 supreme court). The exhaustion requirement ensures that state courts, as a 1 || matter of federal-state comity, will have the first opportunity to review and correct 2 || alleged violations of federal constitutional guarantees. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 3 || U.S. 722, 731 (1991). As a general rule, a federal court will not entertain a petition 4 || seeking intervention in an ongoing state criminal proceeding absent 5 || extraordinary circumstances, even when a petitioner’s claims were otherwise fully 6 || exhausted in the state courts. E.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th 7 || Cir. 1983); Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980). 8 No extraordinary circumstances are presented here. Gonzalez-Huitron’s 9 || petition is dismissed without prejudice. 10 Conclusion 11 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED: 12 1. Petitioner Ciro Heriberto Gonzalez-Huitron’s petition for writ of habeas 13 corpus (ECF No. 1) is dismissed without prejudice. 14 2. Petitioner is denied a certificate of appealability, as jurists of reason 15 would not find the Court’s dismissal of the petition to be debatable or 16 wrong. 17 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final judgment accordingly 18 and close this case. 19 || DATED THIS 7th day of April, 2026. 20 j Vd

22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28