1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELLIOTT NASH, No. 1:25-cv-01813-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PETITION
15 MICHAEL MARTEL, [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is currently detained at the Fresno County Jail. He has filed the instant petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary review, 20 the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 24 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 25 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 26 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 28 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 1 2001). 2 B. Background 3 Petitioner states he is in custody in Fresno County Jail pending trial in Fresno County 4 Superior Court for discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Petitioner does not appear to 5 be challenging these proceedings. In his sole claim for relief, Petitioner contends that he was 6 advised to plead guilty to possession of an inmate manufactured weapon despite being ruled 7 incompetent. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He claims this occurred in Amador County Superior Court on or about 8 May 20, 2001, while housed in Mule Creek State Prison. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He contends that under the 9 terms of the plea, he was sentenced to four years in prison. (Doc. 1 at 3.) 10 To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge his Fresno County case, the Court should 11 abstain from interfering in state proceedings. To the extent Petitioner challenges his previous 12 conviction from Amador County, the Court lacks jurisdiction. 13 C. Younger Abstention 14 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 15 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 16 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 17 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 18 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 19 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 20 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 21 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 22 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 23 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 24 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 25 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 26 from review of a claim. To be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 27 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 28 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 1 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 2 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 3 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 4 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 5 Here, state criminal proceedings are ongoing in Fresno County Superior Court. California 6 has an important interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. 7 Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 8 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). The trial court remains available as an adequate forum for 9 Petitioner to seek relief. In addition, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme 10 Court are adequate forums for Petitioner to seek further relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 11 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the Court recommends abstaining from interfering in state 12 proceedings pursuant to Younger. 13 D. Lack of Jurisdiction 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the Court “shall entertain an application for a writ of 15 habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on 16 the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 17 States.” (emphasis added.) Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the 18 petitioner must demonstrate that he is “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Spencer v. 19 Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). If he is not “in custody,” the Court is without jurisdiction to 20 entertain the petition. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam); Williamson v. 21 Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1998). In addition to the petitioner being in custody when 22 the petition is filed, his claim must assert the right to be released. U.S. v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 23 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (as amended). 24 Here, Petitioner is not in custody for his Amador County conviction and is in custody 25 pending charges in Fresno County. In Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 26 394, 401 (2001), the Supreme Court determined that a petitioner no longer serving a sentence on 27 a prior conviction cannot bring a federal habeas petition directed at that conviction. Because 28 Petitioner is not in custody for the Amador conviction, he cannot bring a federal habeas petition 1 directed at it. 2 ORDER 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED. 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 8 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 9 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 10 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id.
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 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELLIOTT NASH, No. 1:25-cv-01813-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PETITION
15 MICHAEL MARTEL, [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is currently detained at the Fresno County Jail. He has filed the instant petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary review, 20 the Court finds that the petition should be dismissed. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 23 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 24 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 25 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 26 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 27 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 28 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 1 2001). 2 B. Background 3 Petitioner states he is in custody in Fresno County Jail pending trial in Fresno County 4 Superior Court for discharge of a firearm at an occupied building. Petitioner does not appear to 5 be challenging these proceedings. In his sole claim for relief, Petitioner contends that he was 6 advised to plead guilty to possession of an inmate manufactured weapon despite being ruled 7 incompetent. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He claims this occurred in Amador County Superior Court on or about 8 May 20, 2001, while housed in Mule Creek State Prison. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He contends that under the 9 terms of the plea, he was sentenced to four years in prison. (Doc. 1 at 3.) 10 To the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge his Fresno County case, the Court should 11 abstain from interfering in state proceedings. To the extent Petitioner challenges his previous 12 conviction from Amador County, the Court lacks jurisdiction. 13 C. Younger Abstention 14 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 15 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 16 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 17 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 18 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 19 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 20 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 21 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 22 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 23 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 24 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 25 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 26 from review of a claim. To be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 27 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 28 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 1 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 2 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 3 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 4 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 5 Here, state criminal proceedings are ongoing in Fresno County Superior Court. California 6 has an important interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. 7 Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 8 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). The trial court remains available as an adequate forum for 9 Petitioner to seek relief. In addition, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme 10 Court are adequate forums for Petitioner to seek further relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 11 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the Court recommends abstaining from interfering in state 12 proceedings pursuant to Younger. 13 D. Lack of Jurisdiction 14 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the Court “shall entertain an application for a writ of 15 habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on 16 the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United 17 States.” (emphasis added.) Thus, in order to obtain habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), the 18 petitioner must demonstrate that he is “in custody” at the time the petition is filed. Spencer v. 19 Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). If he is not “in custody,” the Court is without jurisdiction to 20 entertain the petition. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989) (per curiam); Williamson v. 21 Gregoire, 151 F.3d 1180, 1182 (9th Cir.1998). In addition to the petitioner being in custody when 22 the petition is filed, his claim must assert the right to be released. U.S. v. Kramer, 195 F.3d 1129, 23 1130 (9th Cir. 1999) (as amended). 24 Here, Petitioner is not in custody for his Amador County conviction and is in custody 25 pending charges in Fresno County. In Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss, 532 U.S. 26 394, 401 (2001), the Supreme Court determined that a petitioner no longer serving a sentence on 27 a prior conviction cannot bring a federal habeas petition directed at that conviction. Because 28 Petitioner is not in custody for the Amador conviction, he cannot bring a federal habeas petition 1 directed at it. 2 ORDER 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a District Judge to this case. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED. 6 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 8 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 9 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 10 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 11 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 12 not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 13 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 14 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 15 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 16 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 17 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 18 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 19 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 20 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 21 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 22 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24
25 Dated: December 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26
27 28