(HC) Craig v. D'Agostini ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, Case No. 2:21-cv-01885-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 13 v. AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS 14 D’AGOSTINI, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it does not state a cognizable federal claim. I will 19 give petitioner an opportunity to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed. 20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 21 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 22 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 23 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 24 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 25 As an initial matter, the petition is difficult to read and, despite my best efforts, I cannot 26 understand petitioner’s claims. However, I am able to understand petitioner’s statements 27 indicating that he is still awaiting trial. ECF No. 1 at 2. I must abstain from considering his 28 claims while his state proceedings are active. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The 1 | four requirements for abstention under Younger—that “(1) there is an ‘ongoing state judicial 2 | proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate 3 || opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief 4 | ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding,” 5 || appear to be met here. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). The petition 6 | indicates that there is an ongoing state proceeding. State criminal proceedings implicate 7 | important state interests. There is no argument that petitioner’s claims could not be raised in his 8 || state proceedings. Finally, his claims appear to attack the very legitimacy of the proceedings 9 | against him, ECF No. 1 at 4 (alleging a conspiracy against him and false imprisonment), and 10 | granting his petition would almost certainly have the practical effect of enjoining them. 11 I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend so that he can explain why this action 12 | should proceed. 13 It is ORDERED that: 14 1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If 15 | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this 16 | order. 17 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ November 23, 2021 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28