Van v. Maricopa County Superior Court

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 27, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-02570
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Derrick Julius Van, No. CV-18-02570-PHX-JJT (BSB)

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 Maricopa County Superior Court,

13 Respondent. 14 15 At issue is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 29) submitted in this 16 matter by United States Magistrate Judge Deborah M. Fine, which recommends denial of 17 the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 2241 (Doc. 1). Petitioner 18 timely filed Objections (Doc. 30) to the R&R, and Respondents filed a Response (Doc. 32) 19 to those Objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will overrule the Objections, 20 adopt in whole the R&R, and deny the Petition. 21 This Court initially denied the Petition without prejudice on the basis of Younger 22 abstention, as the sole ground of the Petition dealt with a state court’s decisions in an 23 ongoing state criminal proceeding. (Doc. 5 at 3.) On appellate review, the Ninth Circuit 24 correctly noted the dismissal Order gave no indication that this Court had considered the 25 impact of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 (9th Cir. 26 2018), in determining to dismiss the Petition, and remanded the matter for this Court to 27 evaluate Arevalo’s impact on Petitioner’s claims. (Doc. 9 at 1.) On that basis this Court 28 concluded that reconsideration was appropriate. (Doc. 10.) Upon remand, the Court 1 referred the matter to Judge Fine to evaluate Petitioner’s constitutional claim on its merits. 2 Upon independent consideration of Petitioner’s claim, with benefit of the R&R, Objection 3 and Response, the Court concludes: 1) Judge Fine’s analysis in the R&R is thorough, 4 exhaustive and correct; 2) consideration of Petitioner’s claim on the merits—either because 5 one of the Younger factors required for abstention is not met or because one of the Arevalo 6 exceptions is triggered, and therefore abstention is inappropriate yields that the June 8, 7 2017 release hearings and related proceedings conducted in the State case at issue 8 comported with the applicable due process protections set forth in United states v. Salerno, 9 481 U.S. 739, 741 (1987); therefore 3) denial of the Petition is appropriate. 10 Judge Fine’s thorough merits analysis concludes that the Arizona State 11 constitutional and statutory provisions upon which the state judge made her detention 12 decision—A.R.S. Const. Art. 2, § 22(A)(2, 3) and A.R.S. § 13-3961(d)—comport with the 13 dues process requirements as distilled by the Supreme Court in Salerno. The Arizona 14 Supreme Court has come to the same conclusion in Simpson v. Miller, 241 Ariz. 341, 349 15 (2017), and this Court finds persuasive its reasoning. 16 In his Objections, Petitioner does not address this analysis. Instead, he raises several 17 arguments premised on incorrect interpretation of the applicable law. First, Petitioner 18 appears to argue that Arevalo dictates a finding that the detention hearing the State court 19 conducted in this matter—and potentially all detention hearings conducted according the 20 Arizona state law provisions set forth above—are infirm. That argument misses the mark 21 wholly. Arevalo provides in relevant part that even if all of the Younger factors are met for 22 abstention, a federal court still should not abstain if one or more of a narrow list of 23 exceptions exists. The posture of this matter is beyond Arevalo, as this Court has already 24 concluded it would reconsider and review Petitioner’s claim on its merits rather than 25 abstain. To the extent Petitioner argues that Arevalo dictates a finding on the merits in this 26 case, one way or the other, he is wrong, and he ignores the specific facts of his own matter 27 and how they differ from those in Arevalo. 28 1 Second, Petitioner argues that the state judge improperly considered certain 2 evidence in reaching the detention decision as to Petitioner, including 1) a conviction 3 Petitioner had sustained in another state for making threats, which conviction has since 4 been expunged or sealed; 2) hearsay testimony that he uttered a threat to a security guard 5 that he would blow up one or multiple buildings; and 3) physical evidence and admissions 6 that tend to inculpate Petitioner in the pending state drug charges, which evidence police 7 obtained after a traffic stop for charges that subsequently were dismissed. Where, as here, 8 Petitioner raises arguments for the first time in his Objections, this Court exercises its 9 discretion not to consider them. E.g., United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621 (9th Cir. 10 2000). But even if it considered these arguments, none would succeed. The Illinois 11 conviction for threats was not expunged until approximately two years after the Arizona 12 state judge rendered the detention decision. The judge properly considered a then-extant 13 conviction of record at the time she made the detention decision. 14 Next, the applicable state rules, as well as their federal counterparts, allow for 15 hearsay evidence at detention hearings. Finally, dismissal of a state charge does not equate 16 to suppression of any evidence gathered in the associated stop for that charge. Had a court 17 suppressed the evidence from the stop or dismissed the traffic charges for an express Fourth 18 Amendment violation or related bad faith behavior by the officers involved, then 19 Petitioner’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument might have merit. But Petitioner has 20 made no such showing or even argued the stop itself was infirm. Petitioner merely provided 21 a Phoenix Municipal Court document entitled “Notice of Dismissal” (Doc. 30 Exh. 9), 22 which provides no indication of anything other than that the red light violation and driving 23 with license suspended charges were dismissed. For that and the several other reasons 24 correctly set forth in Respondents’ Response to Objections (Doc. 32 at 6-8), which the 25 Court will not reiterate here, Petitioner’s evidentiary arguments would fail, were the Court 26 to exercise discretion to consider them. 27 . . . . 28 . . . . 1 Therefore, 2 IT IS ORDERED overruling Petitioner’s Objections (Doc. 30) to the R&R || (Doc. 29) and adopting the R&R in whole. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. S|} 1). 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying a Certificate of Appealability to Petitioner. || He has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The Court 8 || finds that jurists of reason would not find its assessment of Petitioner’s constitutional || claims to be debatable or wrong, as that standard is set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 11 Dated this 27th day of January, 2020. CN 12 “wok: 13 eiffel United State#District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-