Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 4, 2021·No. 5:21-cv-01593·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Case No. EDCV 21-1593-SVW (KK) Date: October 4, 2021 Title:

Present: The Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DONNISHA BROWN Not Reported Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Petitioner(s): Attorney(s) Present for Respondent(s): None Present None Present

Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed Because Abstention Is Required

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 17, 2021, Petitioner Robert Michael Vanleeuwen (“Petitioner”), a pre-trial detainee at Cois M. Byrd Detention Center, constructively filed1 a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). ECF Docket Nos. (“Dkts.”) 1, 1-2. Petitioner appears to challenge his pretrial confinement due to criminal charges pending in Riverside County Superior Court and set forth two grounds for habeas relief: (1) “Petitioner was engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment rights to Petition and Free Speech” and (2) “[I]t [is] a violation of due process when a prosecutor pursues charges in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional and statutory rights.” Id. at 1, 23. As discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed because abstention is required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971) (“Younger”).

/// /// /// ///

1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). II. THE PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE YOUNGER ABSTENTION IS REQUIRED

A. APPLICABLE LAW

When a state prisoner “is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in [28 U.S.C. § 2241] is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment [such as] a defendant in pre-trial detention[.]” Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (holding a pretrial detainee’s request for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) is properly brought); Rosenbalm v. Mendocino Superior Ct., No. C 06-7412 SI(PR), 2007 WL 878522, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007) (“This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) by a person who is in custody but not yet convicted or sentenced.”).

Principles of comity and federalism, however, require federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45. The Ninth Circuit has held abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2) the proceeding “implicate[s] important state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges”; and (4) the requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the practical effect of enjoining” the ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)).

“Extraordinary circumstances,” may warrant exception to the “fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding “abstention principles . . . prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant federal intervention” (citing Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980))). To demonstrate an exception to Younger, a petitioner must show: (1) he would suffer irreparable harm that is “both great and immediate” if the federal court declines jurisdiction; (2) there is bad faith or harassment, on the part of state, in prosecuting him; or (3) the state court system is biased against Petitioner’s federal claim. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm’n v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124-25 (1975); Brown, 676 F.3d at 901 (citing Carden, 626 F.2d at 83).

B. ANALYSIS

As an initial matter, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee with a criminal case pending in the Riverside County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 1, 4. Accordingly, the Petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). See Stow, 389 F.3d at 886.

Petitioner challenges various aspects of his ongoing state criminal proceedings, such as the trial court’s issuance of a “criminal protective order[],” and seeks relief, including dismissal of his criminal charges. Dkt. 1 at 4. Therefore, abstention is appropriate because all four Younger abstention criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner has an ongoing state judicial proceeding as he awaits trial in his criminal case in Riverside County Superior Court. Id. at 1, 4. Second, the resolution of state criminal proceedings clearly implicates important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“The right to formulate and enforce penal sanctions is an important aspect of the sovereignty retained by the States.” (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 46)); Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432 (“Proceedings necessary for the vindication of important state policies or for the functioning of the state judicial system also evidence the state’s substantial interest in the litigation.”). Third, Petitioner has “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges,” either at the trial or appellate level, and there appears to be nothing preventing Petitioner from doing so.2 See Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765. Fourth, habeas relief from this Court in the form of release would have the “practical effect” of enjoining the state court proceedings. See Bowell v. Paramo, No. CV- 17-9313-TJH (MAA), 2018 WL 4735721, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden (Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Younger v. Harris
401 U.S. 37 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Preiser v. Rodriguez
411 U.S. 475 (Supreme Court, 1973)
Kugler v. Helfant
421 U.S. 117 (Supreme Court, 1975)
Kelly v. Robinson
479 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 1986)
Roberts v. Marshall
627 F.3d 768 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Brown v. Ahern
676 F.3d 899 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Steven Donald Stow v. Albert Murashige
389 F.3d 880 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Erick Arevalo v. Vicki Hennessy
882 F.3d 763 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)