The People of the State of California v. Ballester

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 11, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-02113
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No.: 24cv2113-LL-JLB CALIFORNIA, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 ELEANOR LECLAIR BALLESTER, 15 Defendant. 16

17 On November 8, 2024, Defendant Eleanor Leclair Ballester, filed a notice of 18 removal of a pro se civil complaint (with full payment of the filing fees) seeking to remove 19 a pending state criminal case in which she is the defendant. ECF No. 1. Ms. Ballester states 20 in her purported Notice of Removal that she “declare[s] defendant Eleanor Leclair Ballester 21 has been denied the rights to a speedy trial, equal protection for all, liberty, freedom from 22 excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.” Id. at 1. Pending state criminal 23 prosecutions may be removed to federal court only under very “narrow and limited 24 circumstances.” El v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 2016 WL 5419402, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 25 2016). None of those circumstances apply here. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 26 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction.”). 27 Defendant Ballester cannot remove under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442 or 1442a because she 28 1 is not a federal office or member of the armed forces being criminally prosecuted in state 2 court for an official act. Defendant Ballester also fails to justify removal under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1443, which permits it only in the exceedingly rare case where a defendant “seeks to – 4 and, because of state law- cannot assert a defense to the prosecution based on federal laws 5 protection equal civil rights.” El, 2016 WL 5419402, at *2; see People v. Sandoval, 434 6 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). There are no facts alleged to allow Defendant Ballester to 7 remove a pending state criminal case and make it a federal civil action. 8 Additionally, Ballester is currently in custody as reflected by the San Diego County 9 Sheriff’s Department website in case number SCD302834 in San Diego Superior Court, 10 which is the same case she seeks to challenge in the current action 11 https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/wijDetail.aspx?BookNum=%2fTYxVQ331oWORV%2b2% 12 2b%2bzkNzbWUClXCt1J%2bwUr6CPtOBc%3d (last visited December 10, 2024). A 13 court may consider sua sponte whether Younger abstention should be invoked at any point 14 in the litigation. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); see also Wilhelm v. Rotman, 68 15 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting that screening pursuant to § 1915A “incorporates 16 the familiar standard applied in the context of failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”); H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 18 2000); Washington v. L.A. Cnty. Sheriff’s Dept., 833 F.3d 1048, 1058 (9th Cir. 2016) 19 (holding that “a dismissal due to Younger abstention [is] similar to a dismissal under Rule 20 12(b)(6) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”). 21 In addition to her deficient Notice of Removal, the Court finds that it is barred from 22 consideration of Ballester’s claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger. 401 23 U.S. 37.1 See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention 24 25 1 Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings 26 absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 27 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”) These 28 1 || applies, a court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action.) Accordingly, the 2 ||Court must abstain from interfering in Ballester’s ongoing state criminal case. Younger, 3 U.S. at 4546. Additionally, allowing leave to amend under the circumstances would 4 ||be futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Schmier v. U.S. Ct. of 5 || Appeals for the Ninth Cir., 279 F.3d 817, 824 (9th Cir. 2002). 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DISMISSES this civil action based on 7 || Ballester’s improper removal and as barred by Younger. The Court further DENIES AS 8 || MOOT any other pending requests filed by Ballester and directs the Clerk to close the file. 9 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: December 11, 2024 NO 11 CF | 12 Honorable Linda Lopez 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || ———————____—_—_- 24 conviction may be reversed on appeal, thereby rendering the federal issue moot. Sherwood 25 ||v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). Absent extraordinary circumstances, %6 abstention under Younger is required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford 27 adequate opportunity to raise the federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City 28 of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001).