Casteel v. Kinnison ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CARLOS LEVELT CASTEEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00220-NONE-EPG 11 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 13 v. BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 (ECF No. 1) DANA KINNISON, 15 Defendant. OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN 16 TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS 17 Plaintiff, Carlos Levelt Casteel, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced 18 this action on February 12, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asks for this Court to relieve him of his 19 appointed counsel in an ongoing case pending in Kern County Superior Court. 20 For the reasons described below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s claim be 21 dismissed with prejudice because this Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he requests. 22 Plaintiff has twenty-one days to file objections to these findings and recommendations. 23 I. SCREENING REQUIREMENT 24 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), in any case in which a plaintiff is proceeding in forma 25 pauperis, the Court must conduct a review of the complaint to determine whether it “state[s] a 26 claim on which relief may be granted,” is “frivolous or malicious,” or “seek[s] monetary relief 27 28 against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” If the Court determines that the 1 complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. An action is frivolous if it is “of little 2 weight or importance: having no basis in law or fact” and malicious if it was filed with the 3 “intention or desire to harm another.” Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2005). 4 Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured 5 by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 7 pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 8 required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 9 conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell 10 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient 11 factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. 12 at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal 13 conclusions are not. Id. at 678. 14 In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept 15 16 the allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 17 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, 18 Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s 19 favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “must be 20 held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 21 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that pro se complaints should continue to be liberally 22 construed after Iqbal). 23 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 24 Plaintiff alleges as follows in his Complaint: 25 Dana Kinnison was ordered by Judge Collete M. Humphrey1 to file a motion to 26 27 1 The Court takes judicial notice that Judge Humphrey is the Assistant Presiding 28 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Kern. https://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/general/judicial_officers_list 1 dismiss/denial of prosecution, yet Mr. Kinnison failed to do so. Mr. Kinnison was ordered to 2 look into a renewal of a 995 motion by Judge Michael Bush,2 yet failed to do so. Mr. Kinnison 3 failed to present an adequate defense in case no. BF178576A because he neglected to allow 4 Defendant to thoroughly examine witness testimonies. 5 Plaintiff requests that this Court relieve attorney Kinnison as Plaintiff’s appointed 6 attorney because he is working with the prosecution on both cases to gain a conviction. 7 III. ANALYSIS OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS 8 Under settled federal law, federal courts must abstain from interfering in ongoing state 9 proceedings, where Plaintiff can raise his issue in the state proceeding. 10 The Ninth Circuit explained this doctrine as follows: 11 Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles 12 of equity, comity, and federalism. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 460- 73, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974) (explaining the history and purposes 13 of the doctrine); Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-49 (discussing the jurisprudential background of abstention); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 970-75 (9th 14 Cir. 2004) (en banc) (tracing the Supreme Court's application of the doctrine). 15 We must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; 16 (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the 17 proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the 18 state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves. Gilbertson, 381 F.3d at 978; AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden (“ABC ”), 495 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th 19 Cir. 2007); see also Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 20 2001) (en banc) (“[I]n addressing Younger abstention issues, district courts must exercise jurisdiction except when specific legal standards are met, and may not 21 exercise jurisdiction when those standards are met; there is no discretion vested in the district courts to do otherwise.”), overruled in other part 22 by Gilbertson, 381 F.3d 965. An exception to that general rule exists if there is a 23 “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 24 Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 435, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). Although Younger itself involved potential interference with a state 25 criminal case, the Supreme Court has extended the doctrine to federal cases that 26 27 2 The Court takes judicial notice that Judge Bush is a judge in the criminal 28 division of Superior Court of California, Kern County. https://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/general/judicial_officers_list would interfere with state civil cases and state administrative proceedings. Ohio 1 Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627, 106 2 S.Ct. 2718, 91 L.Ed.2d 512 (1986). “As virtually all cases discussing [Younger abstention] emphasize, the limited circumstances in which abstention 3 by federal courts is appropriate remain the exception rather than the rule.” ABC, 495 F.3d at 1148 (internal quotation marks and ellipsis omitted). 4 5 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San 6 Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-1092 (9th Cir. 2008) (footnotes omitted). 7 Abstention is appropriate here because all the elements of Younger are present. 8 Plaintiff’s state court proceedings are ongoing. The proceeding involves criminal matters, 9 which implicate important state interests. Plaintiff has the ability to litigate this issue in his 10 pending cases. To relieve Plaintiff of his court-appointed attorney would interfere in the state 11 court’s proceedings. 12 Thus, this Court cannot grant Plaintiff the relief he seeks. He must ask the Judges 13 presiding over his case for relief of his appointed attorney. 14 IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 For the reasons described above, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s case be 16 dismissed without prejudice because this Court must abstain from interfering with ongoing 17 state proceedings. 18 The Court does not recommend granting leave to amend because the relief Plaintiff 19 seeks is not available in this court. 20 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that: 21 1. Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to 22 amend; and 23 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to close this case. 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to the 25 case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one (21) days after 26 being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections 27 with the court. Such a document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 28 Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the WAS LOU EOCUUINGY INE ES MVOC St PON Ve re AY VI 1 || specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 2 || 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > || Dated: _May 7, 2020 [sf hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28