(HC) Barnes v. California Department Corrections Director ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTOINE BARNES, Case No. 1:20-cv-00836-JDP 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT ABSTAIN FROM 13 v. EXERCISING JURISDICTION AND DISMISS THE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 HANFORD SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE ROBERTS, OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF No. 1 16 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 Petitioner Antoine Barnes, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This matter is before us for preliminary review under Rule 21 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a 22 habeas petition if it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. 23 Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th 24 Cir. 1998). Courts have “an active role in summarily disposing of facially defective habeas 25 petitions” under Rule 4. Ross v. Williams, 896 F.3d 958, 968 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 26 Because petitioner is currently seeking state habeas relief on the claims raised in his federal 27 28 1 petition, we recommend that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction and dismiss the petition 2 without prejudice. 3 Discussion 4 In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a federal court 5 generally cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. This holding, commonly 6 referred to as the Younger abstention doctrine, is based on the principle of federal-state comity. 7 See id. In the habeas context, “[w]here . . . no final judgment has been entered in state court, the 8 state court proceeding is plainly ongoing for purposes of Younger.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 9 902 (9th Cir. 2019). Absent rare circumstances, a district court must dismiss such actions. See 10 Cook v. Harding, 190 F. Supp. 3d 921, 935, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 11 2018); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (“Only in cases of proven harassment or 12 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid 13 conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be 14 shown” is federal intervention in an on-going state proceeding appropriate.). 15 Here, petitioner claims that the state superior court violated his constitutional rights when 16 it failed to award him certain custody credits under California law. ECF No. 1 at 3-4. Petitioner 17 is currently seeking habeas relief before the state superior court on these same claims.1 Id. at 5; 18 In re: Application of: Antoine D Barnes for Writ of Habeas Corpus, No. 20W-0072A (Kings 19 Cnty. Super. Ct. Apr. 10, 2020). Because his state habeas petition is still pending, this court 20 should refrain from intervening in this case. 21 Certificate of Appealability 22 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 23 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 24 1 Petitioner also recently sought habeas relief in this court on the same claims raised here. See 25 Barnes v. Roberts, No. 1:20-cv-00454-DAD-SKO (E.D. Cal. May 27, 2020). Because that petition was dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust, the instant petition is not 26 considered “second or successive” for our purposes. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 487 27 (2000). However, petitioner is directed to refrain from filing any additional habeas petitions with this court until his claim has been exhausted in the state courts. 28 1 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing § 2254 Cases requires a 2 district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a 3 petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th 4 Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes “a substantial 5 showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This standard requires 6 the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of 7 his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to 8 deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; accord Slack v. 9 McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here, petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the 10 denial of a constitutional right. Thus, we recommend that the court not issue a certificate of 11 appealability. 12 Order 13 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a district judge for the purposes of 14 reviewing these findings and recommendations. 15 Findings and Recommendations 16 For the foregoing reasons, we recommend that the court decline to exercise jurisdiction 17 under the Younger abstention doctrine, dismiss the case without prejudice to refiling once 18 petitioner has exhausted his claims before the state courts, and decline to issue a certificate of 19 appealability. ECF No. 1. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. district 20 judge presiding over the case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304. Within 21 fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, the parties may file written 22 objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 23 That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 24 Recommendations.” The presiding district judge will then review the findings and 25 recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 26 27 28 wOAOe 4: IN INE VET □□□ PC ee PAY OT Mt > IT IS SO ORDERED. ° : —N prssann — Dated: _ June 23, 2020 4 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 | No. 206. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28