Oscar E. Vargas v. A. Villanueva

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 19, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00385
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 12 Page ID #:411

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 OSCAR E. VARGAS, ) Case No. CV 22-0385-JPR 11 ) Petitioner, ) 12 ) MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER v. ) DISMISSING PETITION AND ACTION 13 ) WITHOUT PREJUDICE ROBERT LUNA,1 ) 14 ) Respondent. ) 15 ) 16 17 PROCEEDINGS 18 On January 14, 2022, Petitioner filed pro se a Petition for 19 Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging an ongoing criminal prosecution 21 against him. On March 22, 2022, Respondent moved to dismiss the 22 Petition under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and because 23 its claims had not been exhausted in state court. Petitioner 24 opposed on April 15 and May 31, 2022. 25 Meanwhile, on May 10, 2022, the Court appointed advisory 26 27 1 Robert Luna is the Sheriff of Los Angeles County and is substituted in under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d) as the 28 proper Respondent. 1 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 12 Page ID #:412

1 counsel to Petitioner and stayed the proceedings until the state 2 court had resolved the issue of his competency, which Respondent 3 had raised in a May 6 status report. Petitioner was declared 4 competent on July 11, 2022, by the state court. (Resp’t’s July 5 20 Status Rep., ECF No. 35 at 4.)2 This Court lifted the stay 6 and relieved advisory counsel on August 2, 2022. On August 10, 7 2022, Petitioner filed a request that Respondent be made to 8 produce evidence proving the charges against him; he also 9 repeated some of the arguments from his earlier oppositions and 10 requested an evidentiary hearing. 11 On August 23, 2022, Respondent replied to Petitioner’s 12 oppositions. Petitioner filed an unauthorized disguised surreply 13 on September 8, 2022, and it was stricken on September 15.3 On 14 November 16, 2022, Petitioner requested an update on the status 15 of his case, indicating that he had recently allegedly been 16 coerced into pleading no contest to avoid being subjected to more 17 mental-health treatment, had since moved to withdraw his plea, 18 and was arrested on new charges six days after his release. 19 (Pet’r’s Req. Status Update, ECF No. 48 at 3-4.)4 20 2 Throughout, the Court uses the pagination generated by its 21 Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system. 22 3 This document largely simply repeated arguments from his 23 earlier oppositions. As Respondent points out (Consolidated Reply to Opp’n, Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 42 at 10 n.2), Petitioner filed his 24 first two oppositions during the period when the state court had adjudged him to be incompetent. Because he repeated those 25 arguments in filings after he was restored to competency, the Court 26 nonetheless considers them. 27 4 Any claims relating to new charges and any subsequent conviction must be raised in a separate federal habeas petition 28 filed only once any such conviction becomes final. 2 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 12 Page ID #:413

1 For the reasons discussed below, Respondent’s Motion to 2 Dismiss is granted and the Petition and this action are dismissed 3 without prejudice. 4 BACKGROUND 5 On December 30, 2020, Petitioner was charged in Los Angeles 6 County Superior Court with criminal threats, assault with a 7 deadly weapon, two counts of resisting arrest — all felonies — 8 and misdemeanor elder abuse. (Mot. Dismiss, Mem. P. & A., ECF 9 No. 17 at 8-9; Lodged Docs., Ex. 1, ECF No. 17-1 at 5.) He was 10 appointed counsel, was arraigned, and pleaded not guilty to all 11 charges. (Lodged Docs., Ex. 1, ECF No. 17-1 at 5-6.) At his 12 preliminary hearing, on February 11, 2021, he was allowed to 13 represent himself, and the hearing was continued. (Id. at 7-8.) 14 At the hearing on April 20, 2021, the “court found 15 insufficient cause” for one count of resisting an officer and 16 granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss that count and add 17 one for misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing that 18 officer. (Id. at 9; see id. at 10; see also Suppl. Opp’n, Ex. A, 19 ECF No. 31 at 16.) On May 4, 2021, an information was filed, 20 Petitioner was arraigned, he waived counsel under Faretta v. 21 California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), and the court granted his motion 22 to continue representing himself. (Lodged Docs., Ex. 1, ECF No. 23 17-1 at 11.) 24 On June 28, 2021, Petitioner moved the state court to 25 dismiss the charges under Penal Code section 995.5 (Lodged 26 27 5 This section describes conditions when a court must set aside an indictment or information on which a defendant was 28 arraigned. 3 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 4 of 12 Page ID #:414

1 Docs., Ex. 2, ECF No. 17-1 at 32.) The court instead “declare[d] 2 a doubt as to [Petitioner’s] mental competency,” “criminal 3 proceedings [we]re adjourned,” and he was transferred to the 4 mental-health division for examination. (Lodged Docs., Ex. 6, 5 ECF No. 17-1 at 76.) On July 19, 2021, after Petitioner had been 6 appointed counsel, he filed pro se a habeas petition in the court 7 of appeal. (Lodged Docs., Ex. 3, ECF No. 17-1 at 37-40.) That 8 court denied the petition on July 29, 2021 (Lodged Docs., Ex. 3, 9 ECF No. 17-1 at 42), and that same day he filed another petition 10 in the same court (Lodged Docs., Ex. 4, ECF No. 17-1 at 44-51). 11 On August 5, 2021, that court “dismissed without prejudice to 12 petitioner’s filing a petition through his appointed counsel,” 13 (id. at 53), and Petitioner appealed (Lodged Docs., Ex. 6, ECF 14 No. 17-1 at 60-61). 15 On August 30, 2021, the trial court noted an August 24 16 minute order from the mental-health court, “which indicate[d] 17 [Petitioner] was found mentally incompetent to stand trial.” 18 (Lodged Docs., Ex. 1, ECF No. 17-1 at 26.) He filed a habeas 19 petition in the supreme court on September 29, 2021. (See Lodged 20 Docs., Ex. 7, ECF No. 17-1 at 91-100.) That court denied it on 21 November 17, 2021, noting that habeas petitions “must include 22 copies of reasonably available document[s]” and “allege 23 sufficient facts with particularity.” (Id. at 101.) 24 On January 27, 2022, the court of appeal appointed counsel 25 for Petitioner. (Lodged Docs., Ex. 6, ECF No. 17-1 at 59; see 26 Consolidated Reply to Opp’n, Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 42 at 18-19 27 n.5 (counsel appointed for limited purpose of contesting judgment 28 of mental incompetency and related order of commitment).) 4 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 5 of 12 Page ID #:415

1 Appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende, 25 Cal. 3d 2 436 (1979), on February 7, 2022.6 (Lodged Docs., Ex. 6, ECF No. 3 17-1 at 80-89.) The court affirmed on March 30, 2022. See Cal. 4 App. Cts. Case Info., http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ 5 (search for case No. B314912 in second appellate district) (last 6 visited Jan. 19, 2023); (Consolidated Reply to Opp’n, Mem. P. & 7 A., ECF No. 42 at 18-19 n.5). 8 On May 2, 2022, Petitioner filed a petition for review in 9 the state supreme court, and it was denied on June 15. See Cal. 10 App. Cts. Case Info., http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/ 11 (search for case No. S274325 in supreme court) (last visited Jan. 12 19, 2023); (Consolidated Reply to Opp’n, Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 42 13 at 18-19 n.5). Petitioner “returned to [the] courtroom” on July 14 12, 2022, because he had been “found mentally competent” by the 15 mental-health court the day before. (Resp’t’s July 20 Status 16 Rep., ECF No. 35 at 4.) Criminal proceedings resumed. (Id.) 17 On September 24, 2022, Petitioner apparently “pled out due 18 to prosecutorial duress” but then “filed a motion to take back 19 [his] plea.” (Pet’r’s Req. Status Update, ECF No. 48 at 3-4.) 20 DISCUSSION 21 As a general proposition, a federal court will not intervene 22 in a pending state criminal proceeding absent extraordinary 23 circumstances involving great and immediate danger of irreparable 24 harm. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-46; see also Fort Belknap 25 26 6 Under People v. Wende, 25 Cal. 3d 436, 441-42 (1979), 27 counsel may file a brief summarizing the history of the case, raising no specific issue on appeal, and asking the court of appeal 28 to conduct an independent review of the record for error. 5 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 6 of 12 Page ID #:416

1 Indian Cmty. v. Mazurek, 43 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1994). 2 “[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled 3 to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas 4 corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed 5 from and the case concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 6 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam). 7 Younger abstention is appropriate if three criteria are met: 8 the state proceedings (1) are ongoing, (2) implicate important 9 state interests, and (3) provide an adequate opportunity to 10 litigate the petitioner’s federal constitutional claims. See 11 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 12 423, 432 (1982). The Ninth Circuit has articulated a fourth 13 criterion: that the requested relief would “enjoin” the state 14 proceeding “or ha[ve] ‘the practical effect’” of doing so. 15 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation 16 omitted). 17 Even when the Younger abstention criteria are satisfied, a 18 federal court may intervene when a petitioner shows “bad faith, 19 harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would 20 make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435. 21 “[E]xtraordinary circumstances” are limited to “cases of proven 22 harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad 23 faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or “where 24 irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 25 903 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). The circumstances must 26 create a “pressing need for immediate federal equitable relief, 27 not merely in the sense of presenting a highly unusual factual 28 situation.” Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 125 (1975). 6 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 7 of 12 Page ID #:417

1 Here, all criteria for abstention are satisfied. First, the 2 Petition was filed during “pre-trial criminal proceedings.” 3 (Pet. at 2.) See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th 4 Cir. 1988) (as amended Mar. 30, 1989) (ongoing status of state 5 proceedings for Younger analysis is determined “at the time the 6 federal action was filed”). Moreover, Petitioner’s case remains 7 pending in the trial court, and the next hearing is scheduled for 8 January 19, 2023. See Online Servs., Super. Ct. of Cal., Cnty. 9 of L.A., http://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui (search 10 for case number LA094005) (last visited Jan. 19, 2023). “Where, 11 as here, ‘no final judgment has been entered’ in state court, the 12 state court proceeding is ‘plainly ongoing’ for purposes of 13 Younger.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2019) 14 (quoting San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Com. Pol. Action 15 Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1093 (9th Cir. 2008)); 16 see also Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) 17 (petitioner must wait until his convictions and sentence are 18 final before filing federal habeas petition). 19 Second, the state has a well-established strong interest in 20 the prosecution of criminal charges and the defense of its 21 convictions and sentences. See, e.g., Younger, 401 U.S. at 51-52 22 (finding that state must be permitted to “enforc[e] . . . laws 23 against socially harmful conduct that the State believes in good 24 faith to be punishable under its laws and the Constitution”). 25 Third, nothing indicates that Petitioner would not have an 26 adequate opportunity to raise his claims in the state 27 proceedings. Indeed, he already filed a petition for review and 28 a habeas petition in the supreme court, raising some of the same 7 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 8 of 12 Page ID #:418

1 claims he raises here. (Compare Pet. at 3-4, with Lodged Docs., 2 Ex. 7, ECF No. 17-1 at 94-95; see also Consolidated Reply to 3 Opp’n, Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 42 at 18-19 n.5); see Middlesex, 457 4 U.S. at 432 (“federal court should abstain ‘unless state law 5 clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims’” 6 (quoting Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 426 (1979))); Gilbertson v. 7 Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (inquiry is 8 whether petitioner is “barred from litigating federal 9 constitutional issues in [state] proceeding”). 10 Fourth, Petitioner seeks federal-court relief that would 11 “enjoin” the ongoing state proceedings. Indeed, he has alleged 12 “illegal criminal prosecution” against him (Pet. at 2) and asks 13 the Court to “[r]elease the petitioner from this illegal 14 incarceration” (Suppl. Opp’n, ECF No. 31 at 5). See Arevalo, 882 15 F.3d at 766 (Younger abstention is appropriate when the petition 16 raises issues that are not “distinct from the underlying criminal 17 prosecution” and would “interfere with it”). 18 Moreover, no exception to Younger applies. Petitioner has 19 not sufficiently alleged bad faith or harassment by state 20 officials, and nothing in the Petition explains why he is in 21 immediate need of federal equitable relief or points to any 22 circumstance that could be construed as “extraordinary.” See 23 Brown, 676 F.3d at 902-03 (affirming district court’s dismissal 24 of habeas petition under Younger for failure to identify 25 extraordinary circumstance warranting federal intervention). 26 27 28 8 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 9 of 12 Page ID #:419

1 Petitioner alleges “false 911 calls,”7 “excessive use of 2 force,” “false arrest,” “illegal incarceration,” and “malicious 3 prosecution behind false charges,” all during a “deadly pandemic 4 and state of emergency.” (Pet. at 3; see also id. at 11 5 (alleging “illegal search and seizure,” “crual [sic] and unusual 6 punishment,” and “violation of due process”); Opp’n, ECF No. 23 7 at 4-5; Suppl. Opp’n, ECF No. 31 at 3-4.) He also alleges that 8 the trial judge was biased against him and “tactically sided with 9 the people.” (Pet at 4.) But he offers no facts to support his 10 conclusory claims. See Brown, 676 F.3d at 901 (requiring 11 “proven” instances of bad faith (citing Carden v. Montana, 626 12 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980))). Indeed, that the trial court 13 dismissed a felony charge for “insufficient cause” (Lodged Docs., 14 Ex. 1, ECF No. 17-1 at 9) and the police included the victim’s 15 recantation in their report (Pet. at 8 (excerpt of police 16 report)) undermine claims of harassment and bad faith. See 17 Carden, 626 F.2d at 84 (charging petitioners with 13 unnecessary 18 counts that were subsequently dropped did not constitute 19 harassment). Further, “[i]n the Younger abstention context, bad 20 faith ‘generally means that a prosecution has been brought 21 without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid 22 conviction.’” Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 23 24 7 Petitioner repeatedly claims that the charges against him are “false” because his mother subsequently recanted her statement 25 that he had held a knife against her throat. (See, e.g., Suppl. 26 Opp’n, Ex. B, ECF No. 31 at 28; Pet. at 3, 8.) But of course victims routinely recant earlier statements to the police for all 27 sorts of reasons — fear, hardship when the defendant supports them and can’t do so if incarcerated, and a desire to avoid further 28 hassle among them — unrelated to the truth of the allegations. 9 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 10 of 12 Page ID #:420

1 621 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Kugler, 421 U.S. at 126 n.6). Here, 2 petitioner apparently has been convicted after pleading no 3 contest. 4 Nor does a claimed speedy-trial violation “suffice[ ] in and 5 of itself as an independent ‘extraordinary circumstance’ 6 necessitating pre-trial habeas consideration.” Brown, 676 F.3d 7 at 901; see Page, 932 F.3d at 903 (“[E]ven if [petitioner] could 8 establish that the delay in bringing him to trial would support a 9 speedy trial defense . . . it does not follow that the delay is 10 an extraordinary circumstance in the meaning of Younger.”). A 11 petitioner seeking “only to demand enforcement of the 12 [government's] affirmative constitutional obligation to bring him 13 promptly to trial” and who has exhausted state remedies toward 14 that end may go forward with a federal habeas petition, however. 15 Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 490 (1973). 16 Here, Petitioner claims violation of his right to a speedy 17 trial. (See Pet. at 3-4, 11.) But he has apparently pleaded no 18 contest, so relief under Braden is inappropriate. And to the 19 extent he seeks dismissal of this action on speedy-trial grounds, 20 “Younger principles preclude the adjudication of constitutional 21 speedy trial claims . . . when a petitioner raises ‘a Speedy 22 Trial claim as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.’” 23 Coleman v. Ahlin, 542 F. App’x 549, 551 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 24 Brown, 676 F.3d at 900); Wright v. Volland, 331 F. App’x 496, 498 25 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that “no case ‘permit[s] the derailment 26 of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate 27 constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court’” (quoting 28 Braden, 410 U.S. at 493)). 10 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page 11 of 12 Page ID #:421

1 Lastly, Petitioner alleges “[i]llegal appointment of counsel 2 for Mental Health court competency hearing” in violation of his 3 Faretta rights.8 (Pet. at 4; see Opp’n, ECF No. 23 at 2-3.) To 4 start, a Faretta claim is not an extraordinary circumstance 5 involving irreparable injury or otherwise warranting intervention 6 before a conviction has become final because “California courts 7 routinely consider federal constitutional claims arising from an 8 alleged Faretta violation as part of the criminal appellate 9 process.” Jackson v. Villanueva, No. CV 18-6721 TJH(JC), 2019 WL 10 2870875, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2019) (citing People v. 11 Buenrosto, 6 Cal. 5th 367, 425-28 (2018)), accepted by 2019 WL 12 2868955 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2019). Indeed, Petitioner challenged 13 in the state appellate courts the judgment of his mental 14 incompetence and order for commitment.9 (See Consolidated Reply 15 to Opp’n, Mem. P. & A., ECF No. 42 at 18-19 n.5; see also Lodged 16 Docs., Ex. 6, ECF No. 17-1 at 83-86). But he has since been 17 found competent, so his request to be relieved of appointed 18 19 8 Petitioner is wrong that there is “[n]o standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent or Landmark case wich [sic] precludes one 20 from exercising one’s Feretta [sic] rights.” (Pet. at 4.) In Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164, 171 (2008), the Supreme Court 21 stated that “Faretta itself and later cases have made clear that 22 the right of self-representation is not absolute.” And it held that the right may be abridged when the defendant has sufficiently 23 severe mental-health issues. See id. at 177-78. 24 9 Although the Ninth Circuit held in Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2021), that the irreparable-harm 25 exception to Younger abstention may apply in cases of involuntary 26 administration of antipsychotic medication, Petitioner has not raised that issue. (See Pet. at 3-4.) Indeed, in none of his many 27 filings has he even mentioned the state court’s August 24, 2021 order that he be involuntarily medicated with psychotropic drugs. 28 (See Lodged Docs., Ex. 6, ECF No. 17-1 at 83.) 11 Case 2:22-cv-00385-JPR Document 52 Filed 01/19/23 Page12o0f12 Page ID#:422

1 | counsel for his competency hearing is moot.’® (Resp’t’s July 20 2 Status Rep., ECF No. 35 at 4); see McCullough v. Graber, 726 F.3d 3 |} 1057, 1059-60 (9th Cir. 2013) (as amended) (petition is moot when relief sought is no longer available). 5 In sum, the Younger abstention criteria are met and 6 |} Petitioner has not demonstrated any extraordinary circumstance 7 || making abstention inappropriate. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432, 8437. The Petition and the action must be dismissed. See 9] Beltran, 871 F.2d at 782 (“Younger abstention requires dismissal 10 || of the federal action.” (emphasis in original))." 11 ORDER 12 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss granted and the Petition and this action are dismissed without 14 | prejudice to Petitioner’s timely filing a federal habeas petition 15 |} once his state-court proceedings become final. 16 17 | patep: January 19, 2023 breonhtatl~ JEAN ROSENBLUTH 18 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21. | ————“™ 22 10 Similarly, to the extent the stay of his state-court proceedings during his competency evaluation can be analogized to 23 the complete absence of proceedings in Braden, see 410 U.S. at 490, any such speedy-trial concern is also now moot because his 24 prosecution has resumed. 29 't Because this case must be dismissed under Younger, the Court 26 need not reach Respondent’s exhaustion argument. In any event, as Sherwood makes clear, a petitioner must wait until his convictions 27 and sentence are final before bringing a federal habeas petition, “even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus 28 ll has been finally settled in the state courts.” 716 F.2d at 634. 12