(HC) Watkins v. Tuolumne County Superior Court ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND C. WATKINS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01516-JLT-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT 15 TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Raymond Watkins is a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se with a petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently involved in 20 criminal proceedings in the Tuolumne County Superior Court. Petitioner has not yet been 21 convicted of any offense, and he has not gone through any appeals. Accordingly, the Court 22 declines to intervene in the state proceedings and recommends dismissal of the petition without 23 prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 24 I. 25 BACKGROUND 26 Petitioner is currently confined at the Tuolumne County jail. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)1 On 27 October 24, 2023, Petitioner filed the instant federal habeas petition, wherein Petitioner alleges 1 violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for being arrested for trying to talk to the 2 hospital, due process violations for being denied three phone calls upon his arrest and being 3 denied the right to present evidence and witnesses in his defense, corruption of public officials, 4 and evidence tampering. (ECF No. 1 at 5, 7, 8.) It appears that Petitioner has attempted to pursue 5 relief in the state trial court but has not presented his claims to the state appellate court or the 6 California Supreme Court. 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a 10 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 11 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 12 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 13 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 14 In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that when there is a pending state criminal 15 proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution absent special or 16 extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. at 45. 17 We have articulated a four-part test to determine when Younger requires that federal courts abstain from adjudicating cases that 18 would enjoin or risk interfering with pending state-court proceedings. “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is 19 ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate 20 opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has 21 ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 22 2018) (alterations in original) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 23 2014)). 24 Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2023). “Abstention is only appropriate when all 25 four requirements are met.” Id. 26 27 2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 1 “But even where the Younger factors are satisfied, ‘federal courts do not invoke it if there 2 is a showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would make 3 abstention inappropriate.’” Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2021) (some 4 internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765–66 (9th Cir. 5 2018)). The Ninth Circuit has “recognized an irreparable harm exception to Younger,” Bean, 986 6 F.3d at 1133 (citing World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 7 1082 (9th Cir. 1987)), and has applied this exception to claims raised by pretrial detainees in the 8 following contexts: (1) “where a pretrial detainee presents ‘[a] colorable claim that a state 9 prosecution [would] violate the Double Jeopardy Clause,’” Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (quoting 10 Dominguez v. Kernan, 906 F.3d 1127, 1131 n.5 (9th Cir. 2018)); (2) “where a petitioner raised a 11 due process challenge to his pretrial detention in the context of a state civil sexually violent 12 predator proceeding,” Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133 (citing Page v. King, 932 F.3d 898, 901–02 (9th 13 Cir. 2019)); and (3) where a pretrial detainee challenged a court order authorizing forcible 14 administration of antipsychotic medications, Bean, 986 F.3d at 1134–36. 15 Here, all four Younger factors are satisfied. There is an ongoing state criminal 16 prosecution, and state criminal prosecutions implicate important state interests. There is an 17 adequate opportunity in Petitioner’s state proceedings, whether at the trial level or on appeal, to 18 raise constitutional challenges. See Penzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (holding that 19 federal courts should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate opportunity for 20 consideration of constitutional claims “in the absence of unambiguous authority to the 21 contrary”); Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (“[O]rdinarily a pending state 22 prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal 23 constitutional rights.”). And the requested relief of “release[] to get mental healthcare,” “$70,000 24 illegal incarceration fees,” and “$150,000,000 for denial of 10 years mental health and loss of 25 wife, home, property, and sanity,” (ECF No. 1 at 15), has the practical effect of enjoining the 26 ongoing state criminal prosecution. Further, Petitioner has not made any showing of 27 extraordinary circumstances that would render abstention inappropriate. Petitioner has not 1 a desire to harass.” Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 338 (1977) (emphasis added). Petitioner also 2 does not fall within any of the contexts in which the Ninth Circuit has applied the irreparable 3 harm exception. Accordingly, the Court finds that abstention is appropriate. 4 Moreover, the Court notes that “[i]n the case of a damages claim, habeas corpus is not an 5 appropriate or available federal remedy,” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 494 (1973), and to 6 the extent Petitioner relies on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (ECF No. 1 at 5), such claims should be pursued 7 in a civil rights actions pursuant to that statute.3 Additionally, “[a]s a prudential matter, courts 8 require that habeas petitioners exhaust all available judicial and administrative remedies before 9 seeking relief under § 2241.” Ward v. Chavez, 678 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing 10 Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001), abrogated on other grounds by 11 Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30 (2006)). The exhaustion requirement is subject to 12 waiver in § 2241 proceedings if pursuing available remedies would be futile. Ward, 678 F.3d at 13 1045. Here, there is no indication that Petitioner has pursued his claims in the state appellate 14 court or in the California Supreme Court. It appears from the face of the petition that Petitioner 15 has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. 16 III. 17 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 18 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus be DISMISSED without prejudice based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 20 37 (1971). 21 Further, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to randomly assign a District Court Judge to 22 the present matter. 23 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 25 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 26 Within THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, Petitioner may 27 3 The Court notes that Petitioner has a § 1983 complaint currently pending in this Court. Watkins v. Tuolumne Co. 1 | file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 2 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The assigned 3 | United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 4|U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 5 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 6 | 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9} Dated: _November 17, 2023 [see hey 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28