Luis Villachana v. Superior Court County of Kern

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 5, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-00885
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS VILLACHANA, No. 1:26-cv-00885-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION

15 SUPERIOR COURT COUNTY OF [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION KERN, DEADLINE] 16 Respondent. 17

18 Petitioner is a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After conducting a preliminary review, the Court finds that it 20 should abstain from interfering in ongoing state court proceedings, and the petition should be 21 dismissed. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 25 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 26 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 28 1 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 2 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 3 2001). 4 B. Background 5 Petitioner is in pretrial custody in the Kern County Lerdo Detention Facility. He is 6 awaiting trial on charges of murder, attempted murder, burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, 7 and possession of a firearm by a felon. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Petitioner complains he has been denied his 8 right to a speedy trial. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He further contends that his appointed attorney has failed to 9 properly represent him. (Doc. 1 at 4.) Petitioner states he has sought relief for his claims in the 10 Kern County Superior Court, but he was given a postcard denial. (Doc. 1 at 3, 5.) 11 C. Younger Abstention 12 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 13 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 14 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 15 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 16 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 17 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 18 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 20 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 21 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 22 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 23 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 24 from review of a claim. In order to be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 25 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 26 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 27 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 28 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 1 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 2 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 3 Here, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important interest in 4 passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F.Supp.2d 5 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 2003). The 6 trial court remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief. His complaints 7 concerning his appointed counsel can be raised by way of a Marsden1 motion. To the extent 8 Petitioner is dissatisfied with the trial court’s response to his request for speedy trial, the 9 California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court remain adequate forums for 10 Petitioner to seek further relief. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the Court 11 recommends abstaining from interfering in state proceedings pursuant to Younger. 12 ORDER 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 14 judge to this case. 15 RECOMMENDATION 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED 17 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 19 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 20 Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 21 twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy of this Findings and Recommendation, a 22 party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Id. The document 23 should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation” and shall 24 not exceed fifteen (15) pages, except by leave of court with good cause shown. The Court will not 25 consider exhibits attached to the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any 26 1 Under California law, in a motion referred to in shorthand as a “Marsden motion,” a defendant may make 27 a motion that his appointed counsel’s representation has in some significant measure fallen below the level required by the Sixth Amendment. See People v. Marsden, 2 Cal.3d 118, 84 Cal.Rptr.156, 465 P.2d 44 28 (1970). 1 exhibit(s), the party should reference the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page 2 number, when possible, or otherwise reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in 3 excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation may be disregarded by the District Judge when 4 reviewing these Findings and Recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The 5 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver 6 of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014). This 7 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 8 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 9 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11

12 Dated: February 4, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28