(HC) Navarrete v. Black ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHAEL JOEL NAVARETTE, Case No. 2:22-cv-01197-JDP (HC) 10 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE 11 v. TO THIS CASE 12 CINDY BLACK, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE AMENDED PETITION BE 13 Respondent. DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 14 ECF No. 7 15 16 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 2254. He acknowledges, however, that he is a pre-trial detainee and the state criminal 18 proceedings against him are ongoing. Accordingly, I find that I must abstain from considering 19 the merits of his claims under the Younger1 abstention doctrine. I recommend that his amended 20 petition be dismissed without leave to amend. 21 The amended petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules 22 Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must 23 examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that 24 the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 25 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 26 27 28 1 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). 1 Petitioner alleges that he is a pre-trial detainee. ECF No. 7 at 3. He claims that his 2 appointed counsel has rendered ineffective assistance by failing to subpoena police video of a 3 police dog attacking him during his arrest. Id. at 4. Additionally, he alleges that his counsel has, 4 to date, failed to investigate the alleged victim’s background. Id. Under Younger, a federal court 5 must abstain from interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings where: (1) state 6 proceedings, judicial in nature, remain pending; (2) those proceedings involve important state 7 interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford the claimant adequate opportunity to raise the 8 constitutional issues at bar. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, 9 there are pending state judicial proceedings that implicate important state interests, and petitioner 10 will have the opportunity to raise these issues either at trial or on direct review of his potential 11 conviction. Additionally, from a more basic perspective, it would make little sense to litigate 12 ineffective assistance of counsel claims where, as here, the outcome of petitioner’s trial is 13 undetermined. It remains possible petitioner will be acquitted, in which case, no ineffective 14 assistance claim will be viable. 15 It is ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this case. 16 Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended petition, ECF No. 7, be 17 DISMISSED without leave to amend. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 19 presiding over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of 20 Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen days 21 of service of the findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections to the 22 findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document 23 must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The 24 District Judge will then review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 25 § 636(b)(1)(C). 26 27 28 1 > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 ( | { Wine Dated: _ December 21, 2022 Q_—_—. 4 JEREMY D. PETERSON 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28