Egan v. Weinreb

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 24, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01307
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Michael P. EGAN, Case No.: 3:23-cv-1307-AGS-JLB

4 Petitioner, ORDER: (1) GRANTING 5 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) 6 Brad WEINREB, et al., DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT 7 Respondents. PREJUDICE 8 9 10 Petitioner Michael Egan is awaiting trial in state court on the misdemeanor charge 11 of driving under the influence of drugs. (See ECF 1, at 2.) He petitions this Court for a writ 12 of habeas corpus and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 1, 2.) 13 REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP 14 Egan has no income and insufficient funds to afford the $5.00 filing fee. (See ECF 2, 15 at 1–2.) So, the Court grants Egan’s application to prosecute this action without prepaying 16 fees or costs and without posting security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the habeas 17 petition without prepayment of the filing fee. 18 ABSTENTION 19 The habeas petition, however, must be dismissed due to the Younger abstention 20 doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger “instructs federal courts to 21 decline to hear” federal cases that implicate certain parallel state proceedings, including 22 “ongoing state criminal prosecutions.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lara, 37 F.4th 579, 23 587–88 (9th Cir. 2022). To abstain, the court must find that the parallel state proceeding: 24 (1) is “ongoing”; (2) “implicates important state interests”; and (3) “provides adequate 25 opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.” Id. at 588 (cleaned up). 26 All three criteria are met here. First, the state proceeding is ongoing. Egan is awaiting 27 a July 24, 2023 state misdemeanor trial for driving under the influence of drugs. (See 28 ECF 1, at 2, 6.) Second, there is no question that the state case involves important state 1 ||interests. “The States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from 2 || federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence 3 court... .” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) Finally, Egan has an adequate 4 ||opportunity to raise any constitutional challenges. Among other things, he asserts that 5 || various federal constitutional rights have been violated by his onerous bail conditions and 6 || the denial of certain pretrial discovery. (ECF 1, at 4-7.) Egan may fairly pursue all these 7 issues in state court. At least, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, 10 the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. This Court abstains from interfering 11 || with ongoing state criminal proceedings under the Younger abstention doctrine. 12 Dated: July 24, 2023

14 Andre Schopler United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28