1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD C. LOYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02750-FWS-RAO
12 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION 14 ROBERT LUNA, AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 On April 7, 2023, Petitioner Clifford C. Loyer (“Petitioner”), a pretrial 19 detainee proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus (Emergency)” (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that he is 21 currently in custody in the Los Angeles County Jail after being arrested. (Petition 22 at 1.) Petitioner further alleges that he has been misidentified by Sheriff’s deputies 23 and was held for 40 days without arraignment on any charges in violation of his 24 constitutional rights. (Id.) The Petition states that the superior court judge handling 25 the case, Petitioner’s public defender, and two unknown doctors have falsely 26 submitted to the state court that Petitioner is incompetent to stand trial. (Id.) 27 On April 14, 2023, the District Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s 28 request for emergency relief. (Dkt. No. 5.) 1 On May 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this 2 action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 7.) The OSC noted that no identifiable 3 grounds for relief or supporting facts were pleaded in the Petition. (Id.) 4 Additionally, the OSC noted that it appears that Petitioner’s criminal case is still 5 pending before the state court and informed Petitioner that this Court must abstain 6 from intervening in ongoing criminal proceedings pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 7 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). (Id.) The OSC directed Petitioner to show cause in 8 writing why the instant action should not be dismissed. 9 On May 19, 2023, Petitioner filed his written response to the OSC. (Dkt. No. 10 8.) Petitioner’s response is a copy of a printout of an entry in Petitioner’s pending 11 Los Angeles County Superior Court criminal case, Case No. LA098484. (Id.) The 12 printout indicates that the state court received Petitioner’s petition for writ of 13 habeas corpus on March 8, 2023. (Id. ) The state court denied the petition for 14 failure to “establish a prima facie case for relief.” (Id.) 15 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that summary dismissal of 16 the Petition is warranted pursuant to Younger. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 19 States District Courts, the Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from 20 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 21 the district court . . . .” Because Petitioner is in pre-trial detention, not in custody as 22 the result of a final judgment from a state court, the Petition is properly construed 23 as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases also 24 may be applied to habeas corpus actions filed under section 2241. See Rule 1(b), 25 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may issue a writ of habeas corpus 27 before a judgment is entered in a criminal proceeding. See, e.g., Lazarus v. Baca, 28 2010 WL 1006572, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). 1 Federal courts must abstain, however, from interfering in pending state proceedings 2 absent extraordinary circumstances that create a threat of irreparable injury. 3 Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46. Interests of comity and federalism underlie the general 4 rule and counsel federal courts to maintain respect for state functions, and not to 5 unduly interfere with the state's good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own 6 courts. See, e.g., Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 7 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed.2d 116 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of 8 Superior Court of State of California, Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 9 1994). 10 Younger abstention is appropriate when state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; 11 (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) provide an adequate opportunity to 12 litigate federal claims. Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432; see also Arevalo v. Hennessy, 13 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting three Younger criteria and adding fourth 14 that “the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the 15 ongoing state judicial proceeding” (citation omitted)). 16 All three factors—or four factors, pursuant to Arevalo—are satisfied here. 17 First, it appears that Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner 18 is a pretrial detainee and is awaiting trial on the criminal charges for which he is 19 being detained. See Case No. LA098494, at 20 http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/InfoPanel.aspx (indicating 21 Petitioner’s criminal case is pending). It is not appropriate for this Court to 22 intercede before Petitioner’s case in front of the California state courts has run its 23 course. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the 24 most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by 25 way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been 26 appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”). Second, it is beyond 27 question that state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. “[T]he 28 States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 1 interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence 2 a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49, 3 107 S. Ct. 353, 93 L. Ed.2d 216 (1986) (citation omitted). Third, as demonstrated 4 by Petitioner’s reply to the OSC, Petitioner has adequate opportunity to raise his 5 federal habeas claims in his pending state proceedings, including trial and, if 6 applicable, state appellate proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 7 1, 15, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed.2d 1 (1987) (federal court should assume that state 8 procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional 9 claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). And fourth, 10 Petitioner seeks to practically enjoin the ongoing criminal proceedings in seeking 11 immediate release prior to adjudication of the pending criminal matter. 12 Because all the Younger requirements are satisfied, the Court must abstain 13 and dismiss this action unless extraordinary circumstances exist. See Colorado 14 River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 n.22, 96 S. Ct. 15 1236, 47 L. Ed.2d 483 (1976); see also World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. 16 City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1987) (when a case falls within the 17 proscription of Younger, the district court must dismiss the action).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFFORD C. LOYER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02750-FWS-RAO
12 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 13 v. RE SUMMARY DISMISSAL OF HABEAS CORPUS PETITION 14 ROBERT LUNA, AND DENIAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 On April 7, 2023, Petitioner Clifford C. Loyer (“Petitioner”), a pretrial 19 detainee proceeding pro se, filed a document entitled “Petition for Writ of Habeas 20 Corpus (Emergency)” (“Petition”). (Dkt. No. 1.) Petitioner alleges that he is 21 currently in custody in the Los Angeles County Jail after being arrested. (Petition 22 at 1.) Petitioner further alleges that he has been misidentified by Sheriff’s deputies 23 and was held for 40 days without arraignment on any charges in violation of his 24 constitutional rights. (Id.) The Petition states that the superior court judge handling 25 the case, Petitioner’s public defender, and two unknown doctors have falsely 26 submitted to the state court that Petitioner is incompetent to stand trial. (Id.) 27 On April 14, 2023, the District Court issued an order denying Petitioner’s 28 request for emergency relief. (Dkt. No. 5.) 1 On May 9, 2023, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this 2 action should not be dismissed. (Dkt. No. 7.) The OSC noted that no identifiable 3 grounds for relief or supporting facts were pleaded in the Petition. (Id.) 4 Additionally, the OSC noted that it appears that Petitioner’s criminal case is still 5 pending before the state court and informed Petitioner that this Court must abstain 6 from intervening in ongoing criminal proceedings pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 7 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). (Id.) The OSC directed Petitioner to show cause in 8 writing why the instant action should not be dismissed. 9 On May 19, 2023, Petitioner filed his written response to the OSC. (Dkt. No. 10 8.) Petitioner’s response is a copy of a printout of an entry in Petitioner’s pending 11 Los Angeles County Superior Court criminal case, Case No. LA098484. (Id.) The 12 printout indicates that the state court received Petitioner’s petition for writ of 13 habeas corpus on March 8, 2023. (Id. ) The state court denied the petition for 14 failure to “establish a prima facie case for relief.” (Id.) 15 For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that summary dismissal of 16 the Petition is warranted pursuant to Younger. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 19 States District Courts, the Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly appears from 20 the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in 21 the district court . . . .” Because Petitioner is in pre-trial detention, not in custody as 22 the result of a final judgment from a state court, the Petition is properly construed 23 as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Rules Governing Section 2254 cases also 24 may be applied to habeas corpus actions filed under section 2241. See Rule 1(b), 25 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 26 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may issue a writ of habeas corpus 27 before a judgment is entered in a criminal proceeding. See, e.g., Lazarus v. Baca, 28 2010 WL 1006572, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)). 1 Federal courts must abstain, however, from interfering in pending state proceedings 2 absent extraordinary circumstances that create a threat of irreparable injury. 3 Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46. Interests of comity and federalism underlie the general 4 rule and counsel federal courts to maintain respect for state functions, and not to 5 unduly interfere with the state's good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own 6 courts. See, e.g., Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 7 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed.2d 116 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of 8 Superior Court of State of California, Los Angeles, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 9 1994). 10 Younger abstention is appropriate when state proceedings: (1) are ongoing; 11 (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) provide an adequate opportunity to 12 litigate federal claims. Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432; see also Arevalo v. Hennessy, 13 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting three Younger criteria and adding fourth 14 that “the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the 15 ongoing state judicial proceeding” (citation omitted)). 16 All three factors—or four factors, pursuant to Arevalo—are satisfied here. 17 First, it appears that Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner 18 is a pretrial detainee and is awaiting trial on the criminal charges for which he is 19 being detained. See Case No. LA098494, at 20 http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/InfoPanel.aspx (indicating 21 Petitioner’s criminal case is pending). It is not appropriate for this Court to 22 intercede before Petitioner’s case in front of the California state courts has run its 23 course. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the 24 most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by 25 way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been 26 appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”). Second, it is beyond 27 question that state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. “[T]he 28 States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 1 interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence 2 a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49, 3 107 S. Ct. 353, 93 L. Ed.2d 216 (1986) (citation omitted). Third, as demonstrated 4 by Petitioner’s reply to the OSC, Petitioner has adequate opportunity to raise his 5 federal habeas claims in his pending state proceedings, including trial and, if 6 applicable, state appellate proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 7 1, 15, 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed.2d 1 (1987) (federal court should assume that state 8 procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional 9 claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). And fourth, 10 Petitioner seeks to practically enjoin the ongoing criminal proceedings in seeking 11 immediate release prior to adjudication of the pending criminal matter. 12 Because all the Younger requirements are satisfied, the Court must abstain 13 and dismiss this action unless extraordinary circumstances exist. See Colorado 14 River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 n.22, 96 S. Ct. 15 1236, 47 L. Ed.2d 483 (1976); see also World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. 16 City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1987) (when a case falls within the 17 proscription of Younger, the district court must dismiss the action). The Court does 18 not find any extraordinary circumstances here. 19 Finally, because Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial 20 of a constitutional right or that the Court erred in its procedural ruling, Petitioner is 21 not entitled to a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Fed. R. 22 App. P. 22(b); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 154 L. 23 Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S. Ct. 1595, 146 L. 24 Ed.2d 542 (2000). 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 | I. CONCLUSION 2 Under Younger, the Court must abstain from deciding the Petition. 3 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 4 1. The Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice;' and 5 2. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED. 6 7 || DATED: May 30, 2023 Lo L//A—~ ° Hon.Fred Slaughter” 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 >7 || | In light of the court’s ruling dismissing the Petition without prejudice, the court declines to address Petitioner’s Request to Proceed without Prepayment of Filing 28 |! Fees with Declaration in Support (Dkt. 9).