Tabron v. Madden

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 16, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-04517
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH DANIEL TABRON, Case No. 21-cv-04517-EMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW 9 v. CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 10 RAYMOND MADDEN,

11 Defendant.

12 13 14 In the instant federal habeas action, United States Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Corley 15 found that Petitioner had stated cognizable claims and ordered Respondent to file an answer. 16 Docket No. 9. After Respondent declined Magistrate Judge Corley’s jurisdiction, the action was 17 reassigned to the undersigned. Docket Nos. 11-13. 18 After an extension of time, Respondent filed an Answer. Docket Nos. 20, 21. Petitioner 19 subsequently filed a letter asking for the Court to stay this matter indefinitely while Petitioner 20 awaits the outcome of a state proceeding. Dkt. No. 25. The Court declined Petitioner’s request, 21 noting that Petitioner had not provided sufficient information for the Court to determine whether a 22 stay was warranted. Docket No. 28. However, the Court granted Petitioner an extension of time 23 to respond to the Answer. See id. 24 Petitioner subsequently sought an additional extension of time because he is in Alameda 25 County “for resentencing,” Docket No. 29, and later provided the additional explanation that he is 26 pursuing an “1170.95 petition,” Docket No. 30. In the Petition filed in this action, Petitioner 27 stated that he was challenging the conviction at issue in an “1170.95” proceeding in Alameda 1 1172.6, allows persons convicted of murder under certain theories to “file a petition with the court 2 that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter 3 conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts.” Cal. Penal Code § 1172.6(a). 4 Thus, at the time the Petition was filed and at the current time, Petitioner had proceedings pending 5 in state court which may result in his “conviction” being “vacated.” It therefore appears that the 6 instant action is premature under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). 7 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 8 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 9 extraordinary circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54. The rationale of Younger applies 10 throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be 11 exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. See Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior 12 Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (even if criminal trials were completed at time of 13 abstention decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). The Ninth Circuit also has 14 required Younger abstention where “the retrial of [the petitioner’s sentence] is proceeding in the 15 state court,” although the guilt phase has concluded. Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 583– 16 84, 585 (9th Cir. 1998). 17 Federalism and comity concerns are especially important in the habeas context where a 18 state prisoner’s conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue moot. 19 See Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). Even when the petitioner has 20 exhausted his state remedies for the claims contained in the federal petition for writ of habeas 21 corpus, Younger abstention is appropriate if there still is an appeal pending in state court. See id. 22 at 634. “When, as in the present case, an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a 23 would-be habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies 24 are exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been finally 25 settled in the state courts.” Id. 26 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under the Younger principle is required 27 when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important 1 the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the 2 practical effect of doing so. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action 3 Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Multiple courts, including 4 another court in this District, have found the Younger criteria met and dismissed federal habeas 5 petitions, under the circumstances presented here. See, e.g., Anthony v. Pollard, No. 21-CV- 6 00569-HSG, 2021 WL 4951464, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021) (finding Younger abstention 7 necessary).1 8 Accordingly, Petitioner must show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant 9 to Younger. Petitioner’s response to this order is due no later than March 17, 2023. Respondent 10 shall file a reply no later than March 31, 2023. 11 The briefing schedule on the Petition is vacated until this issue is resolved. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: February 16, 2023 16 17 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 See also Contreras v. Montgomery, No. 16-CV-2813-BTM(BLM), 2023 WL 322496, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2023) (finding Younger abstention necessary); Sinsun v. Pickett, No. 22-CV-8354- 26 CJC-SP, 2022 WL 696369, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (same), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Isaac Sinsun, Petitioner, v. Jim Pickett, Respondent., No. 22-CV-8354-CJC-SP, 27 2022 WL 686707 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022); Banks v. Lynch, No. 22-CV-0827-TLN-KJN-P, 2020