Reynoso v. Brusic

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: July 22, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03066
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Jul 22, 2024 3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 JOSE REYNOSO, No. 1:24-CV-03066-MKD 8 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 9 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 10 JOSEPH A. BRUSIC and STATE OF 11 WASHINGTON,

12 Respondents.

13 By Order filed June 13, 2024, the Court instructed Petitioner Jose Reynoso, 14 a pro se prisoner awaiting sentencing and currently housed at the Yakima County 15 Jail, to show cause why his federal habeas corpus petition should not be dismissed. 16 ECF No. 4. By that same Order the Court granted Petitioner leave to proceed in 17 forma pauperis. Id. Respondents have not been served. 18 In his petition, Mr. Reynoso did not name his current custodian as 19 Respondent, thus depriving this Court of personal jurisdiction. See Stanley v. Cal. 20 Sup. Ct., 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). He also failed to present any grounds 1 for federal habeas corpus relief as required by the federal Habeas Rules. See Rule 2 2(c), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Rules”); James v. Borg, 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th

3 Cir. 1994) (“Conclusory allegations which are not supported by a statement of 4 specific facts do not warrant habeas relief.”). In addition, it appears that abstention 5 under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is appropriate in this action. See id.

6 at 45 (“[T]he normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending 7 [state criminal] proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions.”). 8 Petitioner did not comply with the Order to Show Cause, ECF No. 4, and he 9 has filed nothing further in this action. The Court cautioned Petitioner that his

10 failure to show cause would be construed as his consent to the dismissal of this 11 action. It appears that he has abandoned this litigation. Therefore, the Court will 12 dismiss this habeas action without prejudice. See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d

13 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988). 14 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED: 15 1. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 16 2. The Court certifies that any appeal from this decision could not be

17 taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of 18 appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). A certificate of 19 appealability is therefore DENIED.

20 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. The Clerk’s Office shall file this Order, ENTER 2 JUDGMENT, provide copies to Petitioner, and CLOSE this file.

3 DATED July 22, 2024.

4 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19