(HC) Fultz v. State of California ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FINLEY B. FULTZ, No. 2:21-cv-01254-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state pretrial detainee who is proceeding pro se in this habeas corpus action 18 filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 2254. In his habeas application, petitioner challenges his ongoing 19 custody following the dismissal of criminal charges against him on December 20, 2018 by the 20 Nevada County Superior Court. Petitioner further indicates that there is a pending criminal 21 appeal of his case in the California Court of Appeal. ECF No. 1 at 4. 22 Petitioner is advised that federal courts cannot interfere with pending state criminal 23 proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. 24 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). Abstention is required when: (1) state 25 proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 26 interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional 27 issues. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); 28 Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994); Kenneally v. Lungren, 1 |} 967 F.2d 329, 331-32 (9th Cir. 1992). If all three of these factors are met, the federal court must 2 || abstain from ruling on the issues and dismiss the federal action without prejudice, unless there are 3 || extraordinary or special circumstances which pose an immediate threat of irreparable injury. See 4 | Kenneally, 967 F.2d at 331; Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971) (limiting “extraordinary 5 || circumstances” to those cases involving harassment by state officials, prosecutions undertaken “in 6 || bad faith that have no hope of obtaining a valid conviction,” or where “irreparable injury can be 7 || shown.”). In light of the Younger abstention doctrine, petitioner will be required to show cause 8 | within 21 days from the date of this order why federal court intervention in his pending state 9 || criminal prosecution is appropriate. 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 6) is granted. 12 2. Within 21 days from the date of this order, petitioner is directed to show cause why 13 this case should not be summarily dismissed based on the Younger abstention 14 doctrine. 15 3. Petitioner’s failure to respond to this court order will result in a recommendation that 16 this case be dismissed. 17 | Dated: April 5, 2022 / ae □□ / a Ly a 18 CAROLYN K DELANEY 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 12/fult1254.0sc.summ.dismiss.docx 26 27 28