David Allen Benson v. Todd Spitzer

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 8:25-cv-02179
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

12 DAVID ALLEN BENSON, No. 8:25-cv-2179-MRA-BFM 13 Petitioner, v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 WHY HABEAS PETITION TODD SPITZER, SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 15 Respondent. 16 17

18 This Order concerns a federal habeas petition. Petitioner David Allen 19 Benson invokes 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF 1 (“Petition”).) Under Rule 4 of the Rules 20 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Court—rules that 21 apply to the Petition in this Court—the Court must review the Petition before 22 ordering a response. If it “plainly appears” from that initial review that 23 Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court must dismiss the Petition.1 24 25 1 Because Petitioner has not yet been convicted, his Petition is appropriately 26 brought under § 2241 instead of § 2254. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003). That difference does not change the outcome or the analysis. 27 First, courts apply Rule 4, where appropriate, to § 2241 habeas petitions. 28 (cont’d . . .) 1 Here, Petitioner claims that his right to a speedy trial and to the effective 2 assistance of counsel have been violated. (Petition at 5-6.) It appears, however, 3 that the Petition must be dismissed because it asks this Court to interfere in 4 ongoing state criminal proceedings. The docket in Case 21CF10862 reflects that 5 Petitioner’s case is ongoing in the state court, with a pretrial hearing set for 6 October 17, 2025. See Docket, People v. Benson, No. 21CF1086 (Cal. Super. Ct.) 7 (last viewed October 3, 2025). In all but the most unusual case, federal courts 8 will not interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding. This doctrine, 9 called Younger abstention, applies where four criteria are met, Arevalo v. 10 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018)—and all four appear to be met here. 11 First, there must be an ongoing state judicial proceeding. Here, 12 Petitioner’s criminal charges have not yet been resolved, and a pretrial hearing 13 is scheduled for October 17, 2025. Based on the docket, the first requirement 14 appears to be met. 15 Second, the proceedings must implicate important state interests. This 16 criterion is also met in Petitioner’s case, because the State of California has an 17 important interest in prosecuting criminal charges. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 18 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021); see also Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) 19 (“[T]he States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from 20 21

22 See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (a district court may “apply any or all of these rules” to any habeas petition); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884 23 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court’s dismissal of a 24 Section 2241 petition under Habeas Rules 1(b) and 4). Second, Younger abstention, which is the basis of this Order to Show Cause, applies to § 2241 25 petitions. Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (applying Younger to pre-judgment habeas petition under § 2241). 26

27 2 https://visionpublic.occourts.org/. The Court may, and in this case does, take judicial notice of the dockets of other courts. United States ex rel. Robinson 28 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). 1 federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should 2 influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”). 3 Third, there must be an adequate opportunity in the state proceeding to 4 raise constitutional challenges. California law permits Petitioner to raise both 5 speedy trial and counsel-related issues in criminal proceedings. Dews v. 6 Superior Ct., 223 Cal. App. 4th 660, 664 (2014) (evaluating claimed violation of 7 the federal speedy trial right); People v. Abilez, 41 Cal. 4th 472, 490 (2007), as 8 modified (Aug. 22, 2007) (considering whether trial judge’s decision not to 9 replace counsel midstream violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to 10 counsel). 11 Fourth, the relief requested in federal court would either enjoin or have 12 the practical effect of enjoining—meaning put on hold—the ongoing state 13 proceedings. Petitioner here does not state precisely what relief he may be 14 seeking, but it appears that any relief that would remedy the constitutional 15 violations alleged in the Petition would have the effect of interfering with 16 ongoing state proceedings. 17 As such, it appears that Younger abstention is appropriate here. See 18 Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[A]bstention principles 19 generally require a federal district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction 20 over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises a claim under the Speedy 21 Trial Clause as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.”). Where the criteria 22 for Younger abstention are met, and where no “extraordinary circumstance” 23 exist, “a district court must dismiss the federal action.” Beltran v. State of Cal., 24 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). 25 Petitioner is therefore ordered to show cause (meaning explain in 26 writing) why the Court should not recommend dismissal of the Petition. No 27 later than November 6, 2025, Petitioner shall respond, in writing, to this 28 1 || Order. In his response, Petitioner must set forth his arguments, if any, as to 2 || why his Petition should not be dismissed for the reasons stated in this Order. 3 Petitioner’s failure to file a timely response as ordered may result 4 || in the Court recommending to the District Judge that this case be 5 || dismissed for failure to prosecute and to follow court orders. 6 7 || DATED: October 6, 2025 9 BRIANNA FULLER MIRCHEFF □ 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28