Soto v. Matteo ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATHAN SOTO, No.: 1:20-cv-0587 -NONE -JLT 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 13 v. THE ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 14 JANO MATTEO, Kern County Public Defender, (Doc. No. 3) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Nathan Soto initiated this action by filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and a 18 complaint for violations of his civil rights against Jano Matteo, the public defender appointed to 19 represent plaintiff in criminal proceedings pending against him in the Kern County Superior Court. 20 (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) The magistrate judge found that plaintiff is unable to state a claim upon which relief 21 may be granted because his claims are intertwined with the ongoing state criminal proceedings and are 22 barred by the Younger abstention doctrine. Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 23 complaint be dismissed without prejudice due to lack of jurisdiction in this court. (Doc. No. 3) 24 Plaintiff was given fourteen days to file any objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 (Doc. No. 3 at 6) On May 11, 2020, Plaintiff filed timely objections, asserting his civil rights have 26 been violated and he “want[s] to sue Jano Matteo and the Public Defen[d]er’s Office for monetary 27 compensation” (Doc. 4 No. at 1) Importantly, however, plaintiff does not address in his objections the 28 matter of the court’s jurisdiction or the Younger abstention doctrine. (See id.) WAU 1.40 UV VUYO VL! LYVUULPIOCIIL PHU rPayet ¢vic 1 As the magistrate judge observed, federal courts are required to abstain from interfering on 2 || ongoing state criminal matters. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). This doctrine applies 3 if: 4 (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal 5 constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with 6 the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves. 7 || San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 8 || 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). As the magistrate judge indicated, each of these requirements is satisfied 9 || this action: the state criminal proceedings are ongoing; those proceedings implicate important state 10 || interests; plaintiff can raise the issue of his counsel’s effectiveness in the criminal court; and allowing 11 || this case to proceed in federal court would threaten the autonomy of the state court. Therefore, 12 || Younger abstention applies, and this court lacks jurisdiction over the action.! 13 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this court conducted a de nov 14 || review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and 15 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 16 || ORDERED: 17 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated May 5, 2020 (Doc. No. 3) are ADOPTED 18 IN FULL; 19 2. The complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice; and 20 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED assign a district judge to this case for purpose of 21 termination and to close the action. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. ae 23 ) a ea / j f? Fl fs Dated: _ June 2, 2020 SH oe | aor UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 ||! Even if this action were not barred by Younger abstention in light of the ongoing criminal Te nol abs gomg prosecution against plaintiff in state court, his civil rights claim against his public defender would not 27 be cognizable because public defenders do not act under color of state law. See Miranda v. Clark Ch of Nev., 319 F.3d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 2003) (affirming dismissal of complaint because public defender 28 || was not acting on behalf of county for purpose of § 1983 in representing plaintiff's interests).