(HC) Sharp v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ANDRE SHARP, Case No. 1:20-cv-00139-JDP 12 Petitioner, Related Case: Sharp v. Koenig, No. 1:19-cv- 01241-JDP, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 13 v. 2019) 14 CRAIG KOENIG, ORDER VACATING IN PART FEBRUARY 14, 2020 ORDER 15 Respondent. ECF. No. 12 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 17 DENY MOTIONS FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 18 OBJECTIONS DUE IN FOURTEEN DAYS 19 ECF No. 6, 14 20 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 21 ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 Petitioner Anthony Andre Sharp, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas 24 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. On January 23, 2020, petitioner moved for a stay of 25 his state-ordered restitution payments during the pendency of his federal habeas case. ECF No. 6. 26 On February 14, 2020, we denied his motion to stay restitution payments. ECF No. 12. 27 Additionally, we directed the clerk of court to file the petition in the instant case as a motion to 28 amend in petitioner’s related case, Sharp v. Koenig, No. 1:19-cv-01241-JDP, ECF No. 1 (E.D. 1 Cal. Sept. 6, 2019), and to administratively close the instant case. Id. On February 18, 2020, 2 petitioner moved for a temporary restraining order against his prison, again seeking a stay of his 3 state-ordered restitution payments during the pendency of this case. ECF No. 14. 4 We vacate our February 14, 2020 order in part. ECF No. 14. Petitioner sought a stay of 5 his restitution payments, a form of injunctive relief. ECF No. 6. We vacate the section of our 6 previous order addressing petitioner’s motion for stay of restitution. See ECF No. 12 at 3, section 7 C. 8 We now consider petitioner’s nearly identical motions for injunctive relief together here. 9 ECF Nos. 6, 14. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2251(a), “[f]ederal judges may stay any state court 10 proceeding for any matter involved in a habeas corpus proceeding.” Dunham v. Riverside Cty. 11 Sheriff, No. 18CV0863 GPC (JMA), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90269, at *3 (May 30, 2018). 12 “Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing 13 state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary 14 circumstances.” See id. at *3-4; Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-46 (1971) (holding that 15 extraordinary circumstances exist when there is danger of great and immediate irreparable loss). 16 An irreparable injury must be beyond “that incidental to every criminal proceeding.” Younger, 17 401 U.S. at 46-47; see Dunham, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90269, at *5 (denying a motion for a stay 18 of state restitution costs during pendency of federal habeas petition because petitioner failed to 19 state any special circumstances warranting a stay, the harm was not irreparable, and the harm was 20 common to most habeas cases). 21 Here, petitioner has not stated any special circumstances warranting a stay of his 22 restitution costs. Orders of restitution are not uncommon among habeas petitioners; they are not 23 extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, we decline to find that petitioner is in danger of great 24 and immediate irreparable loss and we recommend that his motions to stay be denied.1 25 26 27 1 In the event petitioner seeks a stay of his restitution payments during the pendency of his related case, Sharp v. Koenig, No. 1:19-cv-01241-JDP, ECF No. 1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2019), we will also 28 recommend that the court deny him relief. 1 | Order 2 Our February 14, 2020 order is vacated in part. See ECF No. 12 at 3, section C. All other 3 | sections of the order remain in effect. We direct the clerk of court to assign this case to a district 4 | judge who will review our findings and recommendations. 5 | Findings and Recommendations 6 We recommend that the court deny petitioner’s motions to stay and decline to issue a 7 | certificate of appealability. ECF Nos. 6, 14. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the 8 || Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, we 9 | submit the findings and recommendations to the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the case. 10 || Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file 11 | written objections to the findings and recommendations. That document must be captioned 12 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding district judge 13 | will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 14 1s IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ( Caan Dated: _ February 24, 2020 17 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 | No. 206. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28