Rod A. Huff Jr, LLC v. Beverly Hills Police Department

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-04539
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ROD A. HUFF JR., LLC, Case No. CV 24-04539 AB (RAO) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER DISMISSING ACTION v. 14 BEVERLY HILLS POLICE 15 DEPARTMENT, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On May 19, 2024, Rod A. Huff, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a pretrial detainee 20 proceeding pro se, constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1 (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).) At the time of 22 constructive filing, Petitioner was being held in a jail in Los Angeles County.2 23 24 25 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se petitioner gives prison or jail authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively filed on the 26 date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, 27 the Petition was filed in this Court on May 28, 2024. 2 Petitioner filed a notice of change of address on May 28, 2024, in another pending 28 habeas action, Huff v. Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 24-04115 AB 1 The Petition alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment, the California 2 Homestead law, and the Patent and Copyright Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 3 (Pet. at 7.)3 Attached to the Petition is a copy of a felony complaint in the matter of 4 People v. Rod Anthony Huff, Jr., Case No. SA109037 (filed October 31, 2023), 5 currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Pet. at 10-15.) 6 Because Petitioner’s criminal case is ongoing, the Court must abstain under 7 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and dismiss the Petition without prejudice. 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Federal courts must abstain from interfering in pending state proceedings 10 absent extraordinary circumstances that create a threat of irreparable injury. 11 Younger, 401 U.S. at 45–46. Abstention under Younger is warranted where the 12 state proceedings (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) 13 provide an adequate opportunity to litigate the petitioner’s federal constitutional 14 claims. Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 15 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of Super. Ct. of State of Cal., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th 16 Cir. 1994). A claimant may avoid application of the Younger abstention doctrine 17 by demonstrating that there is bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary 18 circumstance where irreparable injury can be shown. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 19 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). 20 First, this Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the Los Angeles County 21 Superior Court,4 which shows that Petitioner’s criminal matter remains pending. 22 See Criminal Case Access, https://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/ (last 23

24 (RAO) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 25, 2024) (Dkt. No. 7), listing Patton State Hospital as 25 his new address. 3 The Court will use the page numbers assigned by the ECF system for the Petition 26 and its attachments. 27 4 See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding a district court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of 28 public record including documents on file in federal or state courts). 1 visited June 7, 2024). The pendency of the matter before the superior court weighs 2 in favor of abstention. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. 1972) 3 (stating that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have 4 federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after a judgment 5 has been appealed from, and the case has been concluded in state courts). 6 Second, the state court proceedings implicate important state interests, 7 particularly the State of California’s interest in the order and integrity of its criminal 8 proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he States’ interest 9 in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one 10 of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering 11 equitable types of relief.”). Accordingly, the second Younger factor weighs in favor 12 of abstention. 13 Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise any federal habeas 14 claims in his pending state court criminal proceedings. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 15 Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (finding that a federal court should assume that state 16 procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional 17 claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). Therefore, the 18 final Younger factor also weighs in favor of abstention. 19 Finally, Petitioner has not alleged facts showing bad faith, harassment, 20 extraordinary circumstances, or irreparable injury. Because all three criteria for 21 Younger abstention apply and there is no compelling reason for federal intervention 22 at this time, the Court abstains from interfering with Petitioner’s pending state 23 criminal proceedings. See Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// I. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 3 4 || DATED: June 10, 2024 , | 6 DRE BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28