Lisa Marie Hren-Fazzino v. The Superior Court of the State of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 10, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00007
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. ED CV 24-7 WLH (MRW) 13 LISA MARIE HREN FAZZINO, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 17 Respondent. 18 19 20 The Court summarily dismisses this action without prejudice under 21 the Younger abstention doctrine. 22 * * * 23 1. Petitioner is a pretrial detainee in a San Bernardino county 24 jail. She is awaiting trial on gun and drug criminal charges. (Docket # 1 25 at 9-10.) 26 2. In pretrial proceedings, Petitioner’s criminal defense lawyer 27 filed several motions for discovery regarding a local search warrant and the 28 use of an informant in the criminal investigation. The superior court 1 denied the pretrial motions. (Id. at 10.) The state appellate and supreme 2 courts subsequently denied relief in various writ and review proceedings. 3 (Id. at 10-11.) 4 3. Petitioner (through her defense lawyer in the pending state 5 criminal case) then initiated this federal habeas corpus action. Petitioner 6 contends that this federal court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2251. 7 (Id. at 8.) Petitioner further contends that the state court pretrial 8 discovery decisions violated her rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, 9 and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. (Id. at 7, 12.) 10 4. Magistrate Judge Wilner preliminarily reviewed the 11 petition. (Docket # 5.) Judge Wilner directed Petitioner to explain why 12 this federal court could properly hear her claims in light of Younger 13 preemption concerns. Petitioner’s lawyer submitted a memorandum 14 suggesting, inter alia, that the alleged violation of Petitioner’s pretrial 15 discovery rights warrants immediate federal review.1 (Docket # 7.) 16 * * * 17 5. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 18 detained is not entitled” to habeas relief, a court may summarily dismiss a 19 habeas action. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also Rule 4 of Rules Governing 20 Section 2254 Cases in United States District Courts (petition may be 21 summarily dismissed if petitioner plainly not entitled to relief)2; Local Civil

22 1 Judge Wilner also noted Petitioner’s use of Section 2251 (primarily applied to halt imposition of the death penalty in state capital cases) as a basis 23 for federal court jurisdiction here. Petitioner backtracked on the assertion that the capital stay provision provided a meaningful basis for jurisdiction. Instead, 24 Petitioner now contends that the Court could construe the petition under the more general habeas statute at 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket # 7 at 2-3.) Regardless 25 of the jurisdictional provision that Petitioner asserts, the Younger issues discussed below compel dismissal of the action before the Court reaches the 26 merits of any of Petitioner’s claims.

27 2 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states that a district court “may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition” 28 1 Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for summary 2 dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of the petition 3 [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 4 * * * 5 6. Federal courts generally abstain from interfering with pending 6 state criminal proceedings until the conviction becomes final following the 7 conclusion of appellate proceedings. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 8 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 9 489 (1973) (same). 10 7. Younger abstention “is appropriate if (1) there are ongoing 11 state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state 12 interests, and (3) there is adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to 13 raise federal questions.” Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 14 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Sheehee v. Baca, 588 F. App’x 716 (9th Cir. 2014) 15 (same). Additionally, federal courts should abstain when “the requested 16 relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing 17 state judicial proceeding.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2019). 18 To that end, federal courts recognize that “the States’ interest in 19 administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference 20 is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a 21 court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 22 49 (1986). 23 8. There are few exceptions to the Younger rule. A prisoner may 24 seek pre-conviction habeas relief in federal court by demonstrating 25 “extraordinary circumstances” such as “cases of proven harassment or 26 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of 27 beyond those expressly brought under AEDPA / 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (federal review 28 of state court convictions and final judgments). 1 obtaining a valid conviction.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2 2012). Additionally, an inmate may demonstrate that she or he faces 3 “irreparable harm” as a result of the ongoing state proceeding. Bean v. 4 Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021). Irreparable harm may be 5 found when a prisoner: (a) raises a “colorable claim of double jeopardy,” 6 Stanley v. Baca, 555 F. App’x 707, 708 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Mannes v. 7 Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)); (b) challenges his continued 8 detention in a civil sexually violent predator proceeding, Page, 932 F.3d 9 at 902; or (c) faces “the forcible injection of antipsychotic drugs” following 10 the conclusion of Sell proceedings in state court. Bean, 986 F.3d 11 at 1134-36. 12 * * * 13 9. Petitioner fails to meet these rigorous standards. Petitioner 14 has not been tried or convicted yet. The state therefore has a strong 15 interest in prosecuting this case without federal court intervention or 16 delay. Kelly, 479 U.S. at 49. Petitioner has not convincingly established 17 that she lacks the opportunity to raise her constitutional claims in her 18 ongoing state criminal case or on appeal, as in the normal course of 19 criminal litigation.3 Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 224. 20 10. Further, her complaints about access to pretrial discovery in an 21 ordinary gun-and-drug possession case do not suggest that she faces 22 irreparable harm in any way different than the typical criminal defendant. 23 Her claim of alleged discovery errors do not approach the significance of 24 3 Petitioner contends that she unsuccessfully pursued pretrial appeals 25 and writs in state court regarding her discovery requests. That is insufficient to establish that she has no meaningful remedy. Merely losing a motion or 26 interlocutory appeal in state court does not entitle her to federal court review under, or as an exception to, Younger. Page, 932 F.3d at 904 (ordinary trial 27 errors “can be vindicated through reversal of the improperly-obtained conviction” on appeal). 28 1 | proven bad faith conduct by local officials, forced medications, or indefinite 2 | detention of a sexually violent predator. Brown, 676 F.3d at 901; Stanley, 3 | 555 F. App’x at 708; Page, 932 F.3d at 902; Bean, 986 F.3d at 1134-36. 4 11. Accordingly, Younger abstention “requires dismissal of a 5 | habeas petition that prematurely” raises allegations of constitutional 6 | injury. Brown, 676 F.3d at 903; Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. 7 8 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without 9 | prejudice. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 18 Dated: May 10, 2024 4 La Aj-—_— 14 HON. WESLEY L. HSU 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Presented by: is Li [ | 19

20 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28