(HC) Laws v. California Department of Corrections ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY J. LAWS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00262-HBK 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT ABSTAIN FROM 13 v. EXERCISING JURISDICTION AND DISMISS PETITION WITHOUT 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PREJUDICE1 CORRECTIONS, 15 OBJECTIONS DUE IN THIRTY DAYS Respondent. 16 (Doc. No. 1) 17 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 Petitioner Anthony J. Laws, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has pending a petition for 20 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. No. 1). This matter is before the Court for 21 preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See R. Governing 22 § 2254 Cases 4; 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Under Rule 4, a district court must dismiss a habeas petition if 23 it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 24 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). Because 25 petitioner is currently appealing his conviction in state court, the undersigned recommends that 26 27 1 The undersigned submits these factual finding and recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302 (E.D. Cal. 2019). 1 the petition be dismissed without prejudice to refiling once petitioner has exhausted his claims in 2 the state court. 3 I. BACKGROUND 4 Petitioner initiated this case on February 25, 2021 by filing the instant petition. (Doc. No. 5 1). Petitioner challenges his 2019 conviction and sentence for, inter alia, murder and 6 intentionally discharging a firearm entered by the Kern County Superior Court in case no. 7 BF165010A. (Id. at 1). Petitioner is currently appealing his conviction before the California 8 Court of Appeal. See People v. Laws, No. F081267 (Cal. 5th App. June 2, 2020). 9 II. APPLICABLE LAW 10 For purposes of § 2254 habeas review, a conviction if final when “a judgment of 11 conviction has been rendered, the availability of appeal exhausted, and the time for a petition for 12 certiorari elapsed or a petition for certiorari finally denied.” Griffith v. Kentucky, 478 U.S. 314, 13 321 n. 6 (1987). The seminal case of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971) applies when a 14 petitioner’s conviction if not yet final. In Younger, the Supreme Court held that a federal court 15 generally cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings. This holding, commonly 16 referred to as the Younger abstention doctrine, is based on the principle of federal-state comity. 17 See id. In the habeas context, “[w]here . . . no final judgment has been entered in state court, the 18 state court proceeding is plainly ongoing for purposes of Younger.” Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 19 902 (9th Cir. 2019). Absent rare circumstances, a district court must dismiss such actions. See 20 Cook v. Harding, 190 F. Supp. 3d 921, 935, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 21 2018); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (“Only in cases of proven harassment or 22 prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid 23 conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be 24 shown” is federal intervention in an on-going state criminal proceeding appropriate.). 25 III. ANALYSIS 26 Petitioner’s state criminal conviction is not yet final. Petitioner is appealing his 27 conviction before the California Court of Appeal. See People v. Laws, No. F081267 (Cal. 5th 28 App. June 2, 2020). Petitioner has not stated any extraordinary circumstances that would warrant 1 this court’s intervention. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that petition be dismissed 2 without prejudice to refiling once petitioner’s state court proceedings have concluded and his 3 state criminal conviction is final. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A). Petitioner is forewarned that he 4 also must exhaust his claims before the California Supreme Court before refiling his petition. See 5 O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999); Duncan v. Henry, 513 U.S. 364, 365 (1995); 6 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). 7 IV. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 8 State prisoners in a habeas corpus action under § 2254 do not have an automatic right to 9 appeal a final order. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 10 (2003). To appeal, a prisoner must obtain a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); 11 see also R. Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 (requires a district court to issue or deny a 12 certificate of appealability when entering a final order adverse to a petitioner); Ninth Circuit Rule 13 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). Where, as here, the court 14 denies habeas relief on procedural grounds without reaching the merits of the underlying 15 constitutional claims, the court should issue a certificate of appealability only “if jurists of reason 16 would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional 17 right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its 18 procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). “Where a plain procedural bar 19 is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist 20 could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the 21 petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.” Id. Here, reasonable jurists would not find the 22 undersigned’s conclusion debatable or conclude that petitioner should proceed further. The 23 undersigned therefore recommends that a certificate of appealability not issue. 24 Accordingly, it is now ORDERED: 25 The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case. 26 It is further RECOMMENDED: 27 1. The petition (Doc. No. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice. 28 2. No certificate of appealability be issued. 1 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to terminate any pending motions/deadlines and close 2 | this case. 3 NOTICE TO PARTIES 4 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge 5 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within thirty (30) 6 | days after being served with these findings and recommendations, a party may file written 7 | objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 8 | Findings and Recommendations.” Parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 9 | specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 10 | 838-39 (Oth Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 10, 2021 law Nh. fareh Base □□□ 14 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28