(HC) Navarrete v. Black ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JOE NAVARETTE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01197-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT 13 v. AND FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 14 CINDY BLACK, 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 15 Respondent. ECF Nos. 1 & 5 16 17 Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable federal 19 claim. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be 20 dismissed. I will deny as moot petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, 21 because he has already paid the filing fee. 22 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 24 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 25 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 26 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 Petitioner raises several claims related to the arrest that preceded certain state criminal 28 proceedings that are now ongoing against him. Given that petitioner has not been convicted and 1 | that the proceedings against him are ongoing, his claims are unsuitable to proceed in this action. 2 | Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris, a federal court cannot interfere with 3 | ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). 4 | Petitioner has not offered a substantive argument as to why the claims concerning his arrest 5 | cannot be raised in state court.! Thus, he has not made out a claim of extraordinary circumstances 6 | warranting federal intervention. Jd. at 49. 7 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition addressing the above-identified 8 | shortcomings. If he does not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 9 It is ORDERED that: 10 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5, is DENIED as 11 | moot. 12 2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order’s 13 | entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 14 || stated in this order. 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form with this 16 | order. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ( q Sty — Dated: _ November 3, 2022 20 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Petitioner does vaguely argue that the district attorney, the county sheriff, and his public defender all colluded to conceal evidence of “crimes committed against [him].” ECF No. | at 5. 28 | He offers no specifics regarding this alleged collusion, however.