Headen

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 11, 2022
• Docket: 4:21-cv-08125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRIAN C. HEADEN, Case No. 21-cv-08125-HSG

8 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 10

10 SAN MATEO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 11 Respondent. 12 13 Petitioner has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 14 § 2254 challenging a conviction from San Mateo County Superior Court. Dkt. No. 14 at 2. His 15 amended petition (Dkt. No. 14) is now before the Court for screening. For the reasons set forth 16 below, the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner’s requests to proceed in forma 17 pauperis are GRANTED. Dkt. Nos. 7, 10. 18 DISCUSSION 19 According to the amended petition, Petitioner was convicted by a San Mateo County jury 20 for making criminal threats (Cal. Penal Code § 422), stalking (Cal. Penal Code § 646.9(a)), and 21 disobeying a peace officer (Cal. Veh. Code § 2800). Dkt. No. 14 at 2. Petitioner has not yet been 22 sentenced. Dkt. No. 14 at 2. 23 This petition is DISMISSED without prejudice because Petitioner’s conviction is not yet 24 final and because he has not exhausted his state court remedies 25 Petitioner’s conviction is not yet final because he has not yet been sentenced and because 26 the time for filing both an appeal and a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme 27 Court to challenge his conviction and sentence have not yet expired. “Final judgment in a 1 156 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under California law, a judgment becomes final 2 when the availability of an appeal and the time for filing a petition for certiorari with the United 3 States Supreme Court have expired. People v. Buycks, 5 Cal. 5th 857, 539 n.5 (Cal. 2018). 4 Because the proceedings in Petitioner’s state criminal case are ongoing and his judgment is not yet 5 final, the Court is required to abstain from considering this action pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 6 401 U.S. 37 (1971).1 Younger provides that federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state 7 criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances, such as cases of proven 8 harassment, prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith, and other extraordinary cases 9 where irreparable injury can be shown. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45, Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 10 82, 86 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are 11 pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings 12 afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. 13 v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). A fourth requirement has also been 14 articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court action would enjoin the state proceeding or 15 have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that 16 Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) 17 (citing cases). Abstention is appropriate here because all of the elements of Younger are present. 18 As to the first Younger element, the state court proceedings are ongoing because Petitioner’s 19 conviction is not yet final. As to the second Younger element, the Supreme Court has held that “a 20 proper respect for state functions,” such as ongoing criminal trial proceedings, is an important 21 issue of state interest. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“This Court has recognized 22 that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 23 interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court 24 considering equitable types of relief.”). As to the third prong of Younger, the Court finds no 25 reason that Petitioner cannot pursue his federal constitutional claims in state court through direct 26

27 1 Generally speaking, the limitations period for filing a federal habeas petition begins when both 1 appeal and collateral relief proceedings. Finally, any interference by this Court would cause 2 results disapproved of by Younger in that it would enjoin ongoing state court proceedings. 3 AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden (“ABC”), 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). Younger 4 abstention is therefore appropriate here. 5 In addition, prisoners in state custody who wish to challenge collaterally in federal habeas 6 proceedings either the fact or length of their confinement are first required to exhaust state judicial 7 remedies, either on direct appeal or through collateral proceedings, by presenting the highest state 8 court available with a fair opportunity to rule on the merits of each and every claim they seek to 9 raise in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 515-16 (1982). 10 Petitioner must exhaust his claims in state court by presenting them to the highest state court 11 available before a federal court may consider these claims. 12 Because Petitioner’s state court proceedings are ongoing and because he has failed to 13 exhaust his state court remedies, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to re-filing once 14 Petitioner’s conviction is final and he has exhausted his state court remedies. 15 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 16 The federal rules governing habeas cases brought by state prisoners require a district court 17 that issues an order denying a habeas petition to either grant or deny therein a certificate of 18 appealability. See Rules Governing § 2254 Case, Rule 11(a). 19 A judge shall grant a certificate of appealability “only if the applicant has made a 20 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), and the 21 certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard. Id. § 2253(c)(3). “Where a district 22 court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) 23 is straightforward: [t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district 24 court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 25 473, 484 (2000). 26 Here, Petitioner has not made such a showing, and, accordingly, a certificate of 27 appealability will be denied. 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s requests to proceed in 3 || forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 7, 10); DISMISSES this action without prejudice; and DENIES a 4 || certificate of appealability. The Clerk shall enter judgment in favor of Respondent and against 5 Petitioner, terminate all pending motions as moot, and close the case. 6 This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 7, 10. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: 2/11/2022 9 □ Arno S. GILLIAM, JR. / 10 United States District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28