Taebel v. Brnovich ( 2020 )

1 WO ASH 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Mitch Taebel, No. CV 20-01484-PHX-JAT (CDB) 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 Mark Brnovich, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 On July 24, 2020, Petitioner Mitch Taebel, who is confined in a Maricopa County 16 Jail, filed a handwritten pro se “Complaint.” In Order to facilitate consideration of the 17 document, the Clerk of Court docketed it as a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). In the Petition, Petitioner “demand[ed] intervention 19 from the federal courts” for his allegedly “unconstitutional detainment” during his ongoing 20 state criminal proceedings.1 By Order dated August 5, 2020, the Court noted that as 21 Petitioner has been previously informed,2 the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. 22 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court in most circumstances from directly 23 interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. The Younger abstention 24 doctrine continues to apply while a case works its way through the state appellate process. 25 26 1 See Maricopa County Superior Court Docket in case no. CR2019-104-389 27 (available at http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/ caseInfo.asp?caseNumber= CR2018-104389) (last visited July 31, 2020). 28 2 See Doc. 8 in Taebel v. Montgomery, case no. CV 18-01354-PHX-SRB (ESW) D.Ariz. 2018). 1 | New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989) 2| (‘[flor Younger purposes, the State’s trial-and-appeals process is treated as a unitary system’); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) (“Virtually all of the evils at which Younger is directed would inhere in federal intervention prior to completion of state 5 | appellate proceedings, just as surely as they would if such intervention occurred at or before 6| trial.”). Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition without prejudice pursuant to Younger, and directed that this case be closed. Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 8| 4). 9 Petitioner has now filed a handwritten “First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 5). This 10 | action is closed, and Petitioner has not sought to reopen it or presented any basis for doing 11 | so. Accordingly, the Court will take no action on the “First Amended Complaint.” This 12 | action shall remain closed. 13 | ITIS ORDERED: 14 (1) The Court takes no action on the “First Amended Complaint” (Doc. 5). 15 (2) This action must remain closed. 16 Dated this 19th day of August, 2020. 17 18 i C 19 James A. Teilborg 20 Senior United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28