(HC) Belyew v. Pallares ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LISA MARIE BELYEW, No. 2:19-cv-0294 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 MIKE PALLARES, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 18, 2021, petitioner filed a motion for release on her own recognizance 21 pending appeal. ECF No. 11. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be denied. 22 I. RELEVANT FACTS 23 In the instant motion, petitioner references two 2018 state cases of hers – one in Butte 24 County (16CF06270) and one in Colusa County (CR-57771) – in which she was eventually 25 convicted of criminal offenses. See ECF No. 11 at 1-2. It is the conviction in the Colusa matter 26 that petitioner challenges in the first amended petition. See ECF No. 7 at 1. 27 The instant motion indicates that petitioner is requesting release based on the fact that in 28 the matter out of Butte County, the California Supreme Court has “granted review” of the case 1 | and has remanded it back to the Butte County Superior Court for diversion. See ECF No. 11 at 1. 2 | In support of this request, petitioner cites to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, a federal statute which provides 3 || the parameters for release or detention of a defendant pending trial. See ECF No. 11 at 4; see 4 | generally 18 U.S.C. § 3142. 5 | IL. DISCUSSION 6 The motion must be denied. Petitioner is in state custody having been convicted of crimes 7 | in Colusa County. See generally ECF No. 7 at 1. The claims at issue in the instant action relate 8 | to that Colusa County conviction and sentence. See generally ECF No. 7. Any remand for 9 || diversion that may be pending in petitioner’s pending Butte County case has no effect on her 10 || Colusa County conviction. Furthermore, even if state-ordered diversion was related to 11 || petitioner’s Colusa County case, the Younger abstention doctrine,! as extended by the Supreme 12 || Court to civil cases and state administrative proceedings in Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton 13 || Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627 (1986), would prevent this court from granting petitioner’s 14 | motion for release. Finally, 18 U.S.C. § 3142 is not applicable in this matter, as petitioner is not 15 || a defendant who its facing trial in this court. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for release on her own 17 || recognizance pending appeal (see ECF No. 11) is DENIED. 18 || DATED: February 25, 2021 ~ 19 tAttten— ALLISON CLAIRE 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 | —___ ' Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger held that a federal court should not enjoin a 25 pending state criminal proceeding except when necessary to prevent great and immediate 26 || wreparable injury. It is based on concerns for comity and federalism. See generally Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n, v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 620 (1986). 27 || 7? The court notes that in 2018, petitioner filed a very similar motion in Belyew v. California, No. 2:18-cv-2269 DMC P, 2019 WL 2387216, at *1 (E.D. Cal. June 6, 2019). In that case, 28 | respondent’s motion to dismiss was ultimately granted. See id. at *2.