(HC) James v. State of CA ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, Case No. 2:22-cv-02190-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING PETITIONER’S SECOND APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 14 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND PAUPERIS AND DENYING HIS FIRST AS ROB BONTA, MOOT; AND 15 Respondents. (2) FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES 16 NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE SECTION 2254 CLAIM AND GRANTING LEAVE TO 17 AMEND WITHIN THIRTY DAYS 18 ECF Nos. 1, 7, & 8 19 Petitioner, a pre-trial detainee proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it fails to state a viable federal 21 claim. I will give petitioner a chance to amend before recommending that this action be 22 dismissed. I will also grant his second application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, and 23 deny his first as moot, ECF No. 7. 24 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 26 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 27 28 1 | petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 2 | Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 3 Petitioner raises several claims related to pending state criminal proceedings. ECF No. 1 4 | at 2. But given that petitioner has not been convicted and the proceedings against him are 5 | ongoing, his claims are unsuitable to proceed in this action. Under the Supreme Court’s decision 6 | in Younger v. Harris, a federal court may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings 7 | absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Petitioner has not offered a 8 | substantive argument as to why the claims concerning his arrest cannot be raised in state court, 9 | either at trial or, if he is ultimately convicted, by way of direct appeal or collateral attack. Thus, 10 | he has not alleged the existence of extraordinary circumstances that warrant federal intervention. 11 7d. at 49. 12 Petitioner may, if he chooses, file an amended petition that addresses this issue. If he does 13 | not, I will recommend that this action be dismissed. 14 It is ORDERED that: 15 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 8, is GRANTED 16 | and his earlier application, ECF No. 7, is DENIED as moot. 17 2. Petitioner may file an amended § 2254 petition within thirty days of this order’s 18 || entry. If he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons 19 || stated in this order. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form with this 21 | order. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ January 4, 2023 ow—— 25 JEREMY D. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28