(HC) James v. People of the State of California ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:21-cv-00987-JAM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE 13 v. CLAIMS AND RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF AMEND CALIFORNIA, 15 ECF No. 12 Respondent. 16 17 18 Ronald Eugene James, a county jail inmate proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I could not tell what claims he intended to raise in his 20 initial petition, and so I offered him the opportunity to amend. ECF No. 8. Petitioner has filed an 21 amended petition, ECF No. 12, that contains only non-cognizable claims. I recommend that this 22 action be dismissed. 23 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 24 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 25 examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that 26 the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 27 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 28 1 Petitioner’s claims relate to ongoing state criminal proceedings. ECF No. 12 at 2. He 2 states that he is awaiting trial and that the prosecution is withholding DNA evidence that would 3 exonerate him. Id. Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 4 (1971), a federal court must abstain from hearing a suit if: 5 (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not 6 barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the 7 proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so. 8 San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 9 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). Here, all four elements are met and this court should abstain 10 from hearing petitioner’s claims. First, there are, as plaintiff admits, state-initiated criminal 11 proceedings ongoing against him. Second, those criminal proceeding implicate important state 12 interests. See Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 585 (1979) (“Nowhere has a proper respect for state 13 functions been more essential to our federal system than in the administration of criminal 14 justice.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Third, there is no claim or evidence that petitioner 15 could not raise his claims in state court, first at trial and then, if necessary, on direct appeal or in a 16 state habeas petition. Fourth, litigating petitioner’s claims in this court would interfere with the 17 ongoing state proceedings. Claims raised in this petition might be addressed concurrently in state 18 court and contradictory holdings could be reached. 19 It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 12, be dismissed 20 without leave to amend. 21 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 22 presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 23 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 24 of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 25 findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 26 must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 27 District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 28 § 636(b)(1)(C). 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ August 13, 2021 Q_—— 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 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