(HC) Gaitan v. Dalesandro

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 8, 2023
• Docket: 1:23-cv-00926
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALDEMAR GAITAN, JR., No. 1:23-cv-00926-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION

15 SAMUEL DALESANDRO, et al., [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner filed a civil rights complaint in this Court on June 20, 2023. Upon review of the 19 complaint, the Court found that Petitioner was challenging his criminal proceedings rather than 20 the conditions of his confinement. Therefore, on July 28, 2023, Magistrate Judge Gary Austin 21 redesignated the action as a habeas case and referred the matter to the undersigned. After 22 conducting a preliminary review, the Court finds that it should abstain from interfering in ongoing 23 state court proceedings, and the petition should be dismissed. 24 DISCUSSION 25 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 27 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 28 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 1 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 2 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 3 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 4 2001). 5 B. Background 6 At the time of filing the instant petition, Petitioner was in custody in Fresno County Jail 7 awaiting trial which was scheduled to commence on June 5, 2023. Petitioner contends he has 8 been denied reduced bail and has been issued a “no bail” hold. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He also contends he 9 has been denied certain witnesses. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Finally, he alleges that the state court and the 10 prosecution have failed to abide by statutory time limitations. (Doc. 1 at 5.) It does not appear 11 that Petitioner has sought relief in the state courts except in the trial court. 12 C. Younger Abstention 13 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 14 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 15 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 16 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 17 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 18 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 19 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 20 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 21 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 22 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 23 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 24 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 25 from review of a claim. To be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 26 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 27 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 28 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 1 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 2 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 3 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 4 Here, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important interest in 5 passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F.Supp.2d 6 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). The 7 trial court remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief. In addition, the 8 California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court are adequate forums for Petitioner 9 to seek further relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the Court 10 recommends abstaining from interfering in state proceedings pursuant to Younger. 11 ORDER 12 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 13 judge to this case. 14 RECOMMENDATION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED 16 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 18 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 19 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 20 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 21 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 22 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 23 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 24 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: August 8, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28