Patrick A. German v. Superior Court of California

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 5, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02774
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PATRICK A. GERMAN, ) NO. CV 21-2774-SB(E) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL ) 14 SUPERIOR COURT OF ) CALIFORNIA, ) 15 ) Respondent. ) 16 ) 17 18 BACKGROUND 19 20 Petitioner, who is a defendant in a criminal case pending in the 21 Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed a Petition herein on 22 March 29, 2021. The Petition names the “Superior Court of California” 23 as the Respondent and the “People of the State of California” as the 24 “Real Party in Interest.” The face page of the Petition states: “on 25 appeal from the California Supreme Court for the State of California” 26 and “Appeal from Denial of Cal.Pen.Code § 170.1.” 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Petition seeks to challenge the Superior Court’s denial of 2 Petitioner’s motion to disqualify the trial judge, as well as the 3 California Court of Appeal’s subsequent denial of Petitioner’s 4 petition for writ of mandate (see Petition, pp. 3-5). As reflected in 5 the Petition’s prayer for relief, Petitioner appears to seek: (1) an 6 order assigning Petitioner’s criminal case to a different Superior 7 Court trial judge; and (2) an order directing the California Supreme 8 Court to make a ruling “confirming” that Petitioner purportedly is 9 entitled to a different Superior Court trial judge (Petition, p. 6). 10 The Court construes the Petition as a petition for writ of habeas 11 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 2241. 12 13 Petitioner attaches various exhibits to the Petition, including: 14 15 1. A letter to Petitioner from the Assistant Deputy Clerk 16 of the California Supreme Court, dated March 5, 2021, 17 returning Petitioner’s petition for review, unfiled, as 18 untimely (Petition, Ex. A); 19 20 2. A petition for review to the California Supreme Court 21 which bears a signature date of February 24, 2021 but no 22 case number (Petition, Ex. B); 23 24 3. An order of the California Court of Appeal, dated 25 January 7, 2021, denying Petitioner’s petition for writ of 26 mandate “for failure to state entitlement to extraordinary 27 relief” and citing cases holding that adverse rulings do not 28 suffice to prove a judge’s bias or the appearance of bias 1 and that opinions expressed in discharge of official duties 2 do not prove bias (Petition, Ex. C). 3 4 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in People v. German 5 Los Angeles Superior Court case number NA105737, available on the 6 California courts’ website at www.courts.ca.gov. See Porter v. 7 Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 n.1 (9th Cir. 2000) (federal court may 8 take judicial notice of state court docket). The docket shows that 9 Petitioner’s criminal case remains pending and that a pretrial 10 conference has been set for April 9, 2021. 11 12 DISCUSSION 13 14 Except under narrow circumstances not here present, federal 15 courts abstain from interfering with pending state court criminal 16 proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (“Younger”); 17 see also 28 U.S.C. § 2283. “Younger applies “when: (1) there is an 18 ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates 19 important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the 20 state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the 21 requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of 22 enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Bean v. Matteucci, 23 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations and quotations 24 omitted). 25 26 All of the requisites for Younger abstention exist in the present 27 case. Petitioner’s ongoing state court criminal proceedings 28 manifestly implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. 1 Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“the States’ interest in 2 administering their criminal justice systems free from federal 3 interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that 4 should influence a court considering equitable types of relief”). 5 Petitioner has an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings, 6 including state appellate proceedings, to resolve any federal 7 questions that may have arisen. See Middlesex County Ethics Committee 8 v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (“[w]here vital 9 state interests are involved, a federal court should abstain unless 10 the state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional 11 claims”) (citations and quotations omitted); see also People v. Perez, 12 4 Cal. 5th 421, 440, 229 Cal. Rptr. 3d 303, 411 P.3d 490, 507 (2018), 13 cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 415 (2018) (on appeal from criminal 14 conviction, entertaining claim that trial court improperly denied 15 motion to disqualify under California Code of Civil Procedure section 16 170.1); Hester v. Los Angeles Sheriff Dep't, 2009 WL 2602445, at *2 17 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009) (applying Younger abstention where the 18 petitioner contended, among other things, that the trial judge was 19 biased against the petitioner). 20 21 The fact that the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal 22 previously may have rejected Petitioner’s claim of judicial bias does 23 not demonstrate that the future opportunity to raise those claims in 24 the state courts is inadequate. See Baffert v. Calif. Horse Racing 25 Bd., 332 F.3d 613, 621 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1075 (2003) 26 (neither state courts’ previous rejection of an identical argument nor 27 plaintiff’s previous lack of success in a state court forum renders 28 Younger abstention inappropriate); see also U.S. ex rel. Robinson 1 Rancheria v. Borneo, 971 F.2d 244, 253-54 (9th Cir. 1992) (the 2 doctrine of abstention precludes a party from obtaining relief in 3 federal court simply because the party disagrees with the result 4 reached by the state courts). 5 6 Furthermore, the relief Petitioner seeks (the disqualification of 7 the trial judge and the appointment of a new judge) likely would delay 8 substantially Petitioner’s state court criminal case. Younger 9 abstention is appropriate where the federal action “could delay 10 substantially” the pending state court case, thereby having “the 11 practical effect of enjoining it.” See Citizens for Free Speech, LLC 12 v. County of Alameda, 953 F.3d 655, 657 (9th Cir. 2020). 13 14 In any event, this Court has no authority to order the California 15 Supreme Court, or any state court, to replace a state court judge. 16 See Douglas v. Jacquez, 626 F.3d 501, 504 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. 17 denied, 565 U.S. 1116 (2012) (“The power of a federal habeas court 18 lies to enforce the right of personal liberty. . . . As such, a 19 habeas court has the power to release a prisoner, but has no other 20 power.”) (citations omitted). 21 22 A district court may exercise jurisdiction, even if Younger 23 otherwise applies, if the state proceedings “are conducted in bad 24 faith or to harass the litigant, or other extraordinary circumstances 25 exist.” Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 26 457 U.S. at 435. Nothing in the Petition supports the application of 27 this narrow exception to Younger abstention. See Kugler v. Helfant, 28 421 U.S. 117, 125-29 (1975) (criminal defendant’s allegation that members of state supreme court coerced him to testify before grand 2] jury and that therefore he could not receive a fair hearing in state 3] court did not constitute “extraordinary circumstances”); Drury v. Cox, 4) 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by 6] way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 7|| judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state 8] courts”). 9 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is denied and dismissed 11] without prejudice. 12 13 14 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 15 16 DATED: April 5, 2021. SPL 17 18 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21] Presented this 5th day 22) of April, 2021, by: 23 24 /S/ CHARLES F. EICK 25] UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28