JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMAS SARINANA JR., Case No. CV 23-07572-VBF (SHK) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On July 31, 2023, Petitioner Tomas Sarinana Jr. (“Petitioner”) constructively 21 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition” 22 or “Pet.”).1 Electronic Case Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1, Pet. On October 10, 23 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause why the Petition 24 should not be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court 25 remedies. ECF No. 6, Order to Show Cause. On November 20, 2023, Petitioner 26 27 1 Petitioner’s failure to name the proper Respondent, see 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (“[the application for writ of habeas corpus] shall allege . . . the name of the person who has custody over him”); 28 1 filed a Response to the OSC. ECF No. 16, Response to OSC. For the reasons set 2 forth in this Order, the Court orders the Petition Dismissed Without Prejudice.2 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Based on the allegations set forth in the Petition, it appears that Petitioner is 5 a pro se pre-trial detainee pending trial on criminal charges in the Los Angeles 6 County Superior Court. ECF No. 1, Pet. at 2-5. Petitioner alleges that as part of 7 his pre-trial proceedings, he sought discovery related to the Drug Enforcement 8 Administration’s investigation of his case pursuant to, among other grounds, Brady 9 v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which the trial court denied. Id. at 2-3. 10 Petitioner contends that he appealed this ruling to the California Court of Appeal, 11 which denied his appeal. Id. at 1, 61. He has also attached a document on 12 letterhead from the California Supreme Court dated June 9, 2023, which reflects 13 that that Court returned his unfiled documents received on June 9, 2023, as it had 14 lost jurisdiction to act on any petition for review after May 18, 2023. Id. at 63. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 As an initial matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that: “[A] district court 17 shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 18 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 19 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 20 (emphasis added.) By his own admission, Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee. ECF 21 No. 1, Pet. at 2. In other words, there is no judgment of a State court to challenge 22 by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Further, Petitioner is a criminal 23 defendant in an ongoing state criminal action. 24 25 26 27 2 Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief filed on November 30, 2023 is denied. 1 A. Exhaustion 2 1. Legal Standard 3 State prisoners must exhaust their state court remedies before a federal court 4 may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); 5 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion 6 requirement, habeas petitioners must fairly present their federal claims in the state 7 courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged 8 violations of prisoners’ federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) 9 (per curiam). Habeas petitioners must give the state courts “one full opportunity” 10 to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s 11 appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 12 845. 13 To properly exhaust habeas claims, petitioners in California state custody 14 must “fairly present” their claims in petitions to the California Supreme Court. 15 Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O’Sullivan to 16 California). A claim has been fairly presented only if the petitioner has indicated 17 to the court that the claim is based on federal law. Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 18 904 (9th Cir. 2001) (as amended). 19 2. Application 20 Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee, has not sustained any conviction from 21 which he is seeking relief under § 2254, and is not subject to a final judgment in 22 state court. In the absence of a final judgment in state court and the resolution of 23 state court appeals and/or collateral challenges related to that conviction, it cannot 24 be said that Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. Cf. Sherwood v. 25 Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting that in most cases, if the 26 petitioner’s direct criminal appeal is still pending in the state courts, then the 27 petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies.) In his Response to the OSC, 1 because it did not honor the mailbox rule, and thus he meets the “technical 2 requirement” for exhaustion. ECF No. 10, Response at 12-13. This does not 3 correct the failure to exhaust issue before this Court because what Petitioner must 4 exhaust under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the final judgment and there is no final 5 judgment in this matter.3 6 B. Younger v. Harris 7 1. Legal Standard 8 Generally, federal courts must abstain from interfering with ongoing state 9 criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). As a 10 matter of comity and federalism, Younger abstention is required when: (1) state 11 judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 12 interests; (3) the state proceedings provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the 13 federal constitutional claims; and (4) the relief requested seeks to enjoin or has the 14 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceedings. Ohio Civil 15 Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 626-28 (1986); 16 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). As a threshold condition 17 to the above requirements, “Younger applies only when the relief the plaintiff 18 seeks in federal court would ‘interfere’ with the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” 19 Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).4 20 / / / 21 / / / 22
23 3 The Court observes that “a habeas petitioner attacking his pretrial detention should [seek] relief under § 2241, not § 2254.” Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004). Still, the 24 federal court must adhere to the Younger abstention doctrine in deciding whether it may adjudicate a § 2241 Petition. See, e.g., Rasmussen v. Garrett, 489 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1153-1154 25 (D. Or. 2020).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMAS SARINANA JR., Case No. CV 23-07572-VBF (SHK) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WITHOUT PREJUDICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On July 31, 2023, Petitioner Tomas Sarinana Jr. (“Petitioner”) constructively 21 filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition” 22 or “Pet.”).1 Electronic Case Filing Number (“ECF No.”) 1, Pet. On October 10, 23 2023, the Court issued an order requiring Petitioner to show cause why the Petition 24 should not be dismissed due to Petitioner’s failure to exhaust his state court 25 remedies. ECF No. 6, Order to Show Cause. On November 20, 2023, Petitioner 26 27 1 Petitioner’s failure to name the proper Respondent, see 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (“[the application for writ of habeas corpus] shall allege . . . the name of the person who has custody over him”); 28 1 filed a Response to the OSC. ECF No. 16, Response to OSC. For the reasons set 2 forth in this Order, the Court orders the Petition Dismissed Without Prejudice.2 3 II. BACKGROUND 4 Based on the allegations set forth in the Petition, it appears that Petitioner is 5 a pro se pre-trial detainee pending trial on criminal charges in the Los Angeles 6 County Superior Court. ECF No. 1, Pet. at 2-5. Petitioner alleges that as part of 7 his pre-trial proceedings, he sought discovery related to the Drug Enforcement 8 Administration’s investigation of his case pursuant to, among other grounds, Brady 9 v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), which the trial court denied. Id. at 2-3. 10 Petitioner contends that he appealed this ruling to the California Court of Appeal, 11 which denied his appeal. Id. at 1, 61. He has also attached a document on 12 letterhead from the California Supreme Court dated June 9, 2023, which reflects 13 that that Court returned his unfiled documents received on June 9, 2023, as it had 14 lost jurisdiction to act on any petition for review after May 18, 2023. Id. at 63. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 As an initial matter, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) provides that: “[A] district court 17 shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in 18 custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in 19 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 20 (emphasis added.) By his own admission, Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee. ECF 21 No. 1, Pet. at 2. In other words, there is no judgment of a State court to challenge 22 by way of a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Further, Petitioner is a criminal 23 defendant in an ongoing state criminal action. 24 25 26 27 2 Petitioner’s Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief filed on November 30, 2023 is denied. 1 A. Exhaustion 2 1. Legal Standard 3 State prisoners must exhaust their state court remedies before a federal court 4 may consider granting habeas corpus relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A); 5 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 842 (1999). To satisfy the exhaustion 6 requirement, habeas petitioners must fairly present their federal claims in the state 7 courts in order to give the State the opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged 8 violations of prisoners’ federal rights. Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995) 9 (per curiam). Habeas petitioners must give the state courts “one full opportunity” 10 to decide a federal claim by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s 11 appellate process in order to properly exhaust a claim. O’Sullivan, 526 U.S. at 12 845. 13 To properly exhaust habeas claims, petitioners in California state custody 14 must “fairly present” their claims in petitions to the California Supreme Court. 15 Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying O’Sullivan to 16 California). A claim has been fairly presented only if the petitioner has indicated 17 to the court that the claim is based on federal law. Lyons v. Crawford, 247 F.3d 18 904 (9th Cir. 2001) (as amended). 19 2. Application 20 Petitioner is a pre-trial detainee, has not sustained any conviction from 21 which he is seeking relief under § 2254, and is not subject to a final judgment in 22 state court. In the absence of a final judgment in state court and the resolution of 23 state court appeals and/or collateral challenges related to that conviction, it cannot 24 be said that Petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies. Cf. Sherwood v. 25 Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983) (noting that in most cases, if the 26 petitioner’s direct criminal appeal is still pending in the state courts, then the 27 petitioner has not exhausted his state remedies.) In his Response to the OSC, 1 because it did not honor the mailbox rule, and thus he meets the “technical 2 requirement” for exhaustion. ECF No. 10, Response at 12-13. This does not 3 correct the failure to exhaust issue before this Court because what Petitioner must 4 exhaust under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the final judgment and there is no final 5 judgment in this matter.3 6 B. Younger v. Harris 7 1. Legal Standard 8 Generally, federal courts must abstain from interfering with ongoing state 9 criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). As a 10 matter of comity and federalism, Younger abstention is required when: (1) state 11 judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 12 interests; (3) the state proceedings provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the 13 federal constitutional claims; and (4) the relief requested seeks to enjoin or has the 14 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceedings. Ohio Civil 15 Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 626-28 (1986); 16 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). As a threshold condition 17 to the above requirements, “Younger applies only when the relief the plaintiff 18 seeks in federal court would ‘interfere’ with the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” 19 Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc).4 20 / / / 21 / / / 22
23 3 The Court observes that “a habeas petitioner attacking his pretrial detention should [seek] relief under § 2241, not § 2254.” Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004). Still, the 24 federal court must adhere to the Younger abstention doctrine in deciding whether it may adjudicate a § 2241 Petition. See, e.g., Rasmussen v. Garrett, 489 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1153-1154 25 (D. Or. 2020). 26 4 Green was overruled in part by Gilberston v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 2004) as follows: “[F]ederal courts should not dismiss actions where damages are at issue; rather, 27 damages actions should be stayed until the state proceedings are completed. To this extent we recede from our statements in Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 1 2. Application 2 Here, all four of the criteria under Younger are present and compel this 3 federal court to abstain from adjudicating the issue raised in this action. First, 4 Petitioner is currently a defendant in an ongoing criminal prosecution initiated by 5 the state. He is attempting to invalidate a pre-trial ruling by the trial court relating 6 to the production of discovery for that criminal trial. This state action against 7 Petitioner was pending at the time this action was filed. Columbia Basin Apt. 8 Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 2001). Second, the state 9 proceedings involve important state interests – the order and integrity of its 10 criminal proceedings without interference from a federal court. See Kelly v. 11 Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he States’ interest in administering their 12 criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful 13 of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of 14 relief.”) (citation omitted). Third, the state proceedings will provide Petitioner 15 with a full and fair opportunity to litigate his federal constitutional claims – by 16 virtue of a direct appeal and/or a collateral challenge in state court. See Pennzoil 17 Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (the federal court should assume that 18 state procedures afford an adequate remedy to consider federal claims absent 19 “unambiguous authority to the contrary”). Fourth, this Federal Habeas Court’s 20 ruling on this pre-trial discovery issue would interfere with the trial proceedings. 21 Cf. Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 766 (finding that regardless of how the habeas challenge 22 to the bail issue were resolved, “the prosecution will move forward unimpeded”). 23 As an exception to the abstention rule described in Younger, a habeas 24 petitioner may file a federal habeas petition before the state court issues a final 25 judgment of conviction when asserting a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. 26 See Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1992). Petitioner here 27 does not raise a double jeopardy claim. 1 Because the Younger requirements are satisfied, this Court must abstain 2 from considering the Petition absent extraordinary circumstances. See Middlesex 3 Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). There 4 are three exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine: (1) when there is evidence 5 of state proceedings motivated by bad faith; (2) when irreparable injury would 6 occur; or (3) when there was no adequate alternative state forum where the 7 constitutional issues can be raised. See San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 8 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th 9 Cir. 2008) (“An exception to that general rule exists if there is a ‘showing of bad 10 faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 11 abstention inappropriate.’”) (citing Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 435). 12 Petitioner has not made any showing of bad faith or irreparable injury. See, 13 e.g., Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 (finding that “[c]ertain types of injury, in particular, 14 the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal 15 prosecution, could not by themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in the special 16 legal sense of that term”). As to the third consideration -- when there is no 17 adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised – 18 there is no evidence that this is the situation at hand. Petitioner challenges a pre- 19 trial discovery ruling from the trial court and by the California Court of Appeal’s 20 own finding, Petitioner will have an opportunity to challenge that ruling on direct 21 appeal. For these reasons, the Court finds that it must dismiss this Petition 22 pursuant to Younger. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / I IV. CONCLUSION 2 For these reasons, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 3 4 Dated: — May 24, 2024 /leiee b Pardon. 5 8 9 10 Presented by: 11 er 12 | United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28