Jose Ayala v. Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles

Opinion

JS-6 Case No. CV 23-8812 CJC (MRW) Petitioner, v. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION Respondent. The Court summarily dismisses Petitioner’s habeas corpus action based on the Younger abstention doctrine. * * * 1. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in a Los Angeles County jail facility. Petitioner alleges that he’s been in custody (including at medical or mental health facilities due to ongoing competency proceedings) since his arrest in 2019. (Docket # 1 at 5; # 3 at 4-5.) 2. Petitioner filed a petition in this Court seeking habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docket # 1 at 1.) The petition contends that his pretrial detention plus delays in his arraignment and preliminary hearing violate the federal constitution and elements of state criminal procedure. Petitioner acknowledges that he is not subject to a judgment of conviction in his pending criminal case. (Id.) 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner preliminarily reviewed the petition and supporting memorandum. Judge Wilner directed Petitioner to explain why this federal court could properly hear any of his claims at this stage of his ongoing criminal case. (Docket # 12.) Petitioner submitted a memorandum broadly contending that his claims were ripe for federal review. (Docket # 16.) * * * 4. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may dismiss a habeas action without ordering service on the responding party. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief); Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 5. Petitioner is not entitled to pursue habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as he requests. That statute requires a prisoner to establish that s/he is “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). A pretrial detainee like Petitioner is not in custody due to a conviction or judgment. Habeas relief under Section 2254 is not available. 6. The Court could potentially exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to consider a habeas petition brought by a pre-trial detainee such as Petitioner. However, federal courts generally abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings until the conviction becomes final after the conclusion of appellate proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489 (1973) (same). 7. Younger abstention “is appropriate if (1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions.” Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Sheehee v. Baca, 588 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014) (same). To that end, federal courts recognize that “the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986). 8. There are few exceptions to the Younger rule. A prisoner may seek pre-conviction habeas relief in federal court by demonstrating “extraordinary circumstances” such as “cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012). Another valid exception is when a prisoner raises a “colorable claim of double jeopardy.” Stanley v. Baca, 555 F. App’x 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)). 9. Petitioner fails to meet these rigorous standards. Petitioner has not been tried or convicted yet, and has not convincingly established that he lacks the opportunity to raise his constitutional claims in his ongoing state criminal case.! Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 224. Further, his complaints are too ill-formed to constitute proven claims of bad faith, extraordinary circumstances by local officials, or impending double jeopardy violations that warrant federal habeas intervention. Brown, 676 F.3d at 901; Stanley, 555 F. App’x at 708. 10. Accordingly, Younger abstention “requires dismissal of a habeas petition that prematurely” raises allegations of constitutional injury. Brown, 676 F.3d at 908; Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. Therefore, the present action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Ko ye Dated: March 7, 2024 : HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: #4 HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ———————C 1 Petitioner’s bare contention that he has filed numerous appeals and habeas petitions in state court regarding his ongoing detention is insufficient to establish that he has no remedy. Simply losing in state court (especially when Petitioner acknowledges that he has been involved in protracted competency proceedings (Petitioner identifies himself in his filings as the “U.S. King Justice and Jurisdictional King of Spain”) (Docket # 1 at 9)) does not entitle him to federal court review under, or as an exception to, Younger.