Jasmine Benard Austion v. Alex Villaneuva ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASMINE BENARD AUSTION, Case No. 2:20-cv-10898-ODW (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 v. PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 DISMISSED SHERIFF ALEX VILLANEUVA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2254 on November 20, 2020. According to the petition, Petitioner is currently in 20 state custody awaiting a criminal trial on charges of domestic violence, rape, and 21 resisting arrest. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Petitioner alleges that he was denied his 22 constitutional rights by (1) the trial court’s denial of a motion to exclude the victim’s 23 inconsistent statements and (2) the trial court’s denial of him motion to dismiss the 24 case. (ECF No. 1 at 5.) 25 Petitioner previously filed a habeas corpus petition in this Court, in which he 26 also sought to enjoin the same state court criminal proceedings. Case No. 2:20-cv- 27 08741-ODW(AFM). In the prior petition, Petitioner alleged that the State improperly 28 refiled charges after they were dismissed due to a speedy trial violation. On 1 November 10, 2020, judgment was entered dismissing that petition without prejudice 2 based upon the Court’s determination that abstention was required. For the following 3 reasons, it appears that the present petition is subject to dismissal for the same reason 4 that Petitioner’s prior petition was dismissed. 5 DISCUSSION 6 “Fundamental principles of comity and federalism prohibit the federal courts 7 from enjoining ongoing state proceedings except under ‘extraordinary 8 circumstances.’” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 9 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971)). The longstanding public policy against 10 federal court interference with pending state court proceedings is sufficiently 11 important that federal courts may raise abstention sua sponte. See Hoye v. City of 12 Oakland, 653 F.3d 835, 843 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011); Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. 13 Cnty. of Alameda, 953 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he court may raise 14 abstention of its own accord at any stage of the litigation.”) (citing Bellotti v. Baird, 15 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976)). Younger abstention is appropriate where: “(1) there 16 is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 17 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 18 constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the 19 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Page v. King, 932 20 F.3d 898, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 21 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 22 In this case, all the Younger criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner has not yet 23 been convicted or sentenced. Thus, criminal proceedings are ongoing. Second, it is 24 beyond dispute that state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests, 25 and states have an important interest in passing upon and correction violations of a 26 criminal defendant’s rights. See, e.g., Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) 27 (“This Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal 28 justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the 1 considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”) 2 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity in 3 the state trial and appellate proceedings to resolve any federal questions that may 4 have arisen during the proceedings. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden 5 State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (where vital state interests involved, 6 federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars interposition of 7 constitutional claims) (citations and quotations omitted); Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 8 Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (federal court should assume state procedures will afford 9 adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims in absence of 10 unambiguous authority to contrary). Fourth, granting the relief Petitioner apparently 11 seeks – dismissing the charges against him – would necessarily interfere with the 12 state criminal proceedings. 13 Because the Younger requirements are satisfied in this case, abstention applies 14 to the petition unless Petitioner can demonstrate that “extraordinary circumstances” 15 warrant federal intervention. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53. “Only in cases of proven 16 harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of 17 obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 18 irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state 19 prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). Petitioner does 20 not allege, and nothing suggests, that such extraordinary circumstances exist here. 21 Based upon the foregoing, it appears that Younger abstention is required and 22 that this petition should be dismissed without prejudice to its refiling after 23 Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings (including his direct appeal) are completed 24 and his federal claims have been properly presented to the California courts. See 25 Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988)(Youngerabstention requires 26 dismissal of the federal action); Gomez v. FBI, 2017 WL 5668027, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 27 Nov. 27, 2017) (summary dismissal warranted where all of the Youngerrequirements 28 were satisfied, and no extraordinary circumstances existed). 1 ORDER 2 Petitioner is ordered to show cause on or before December 23, 2020 why this 3 || action should not be dismissed without prejudice on the basis of Younger abstention. 4 Petitioner is cautioned that his failure to timely file a response to this 5 || Order may result in the dismissal of this petition without or for failure to 6 || prosecute and failure to comply with a court order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); 7 || C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 41-1. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || DATED: 12/7/2020 (Wy & □ ns 11 12 ALEXANDER F. MacKINNON 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28