(HC) Ramirez v. Aguilar ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NARCISO RAMIREZ, No. 1:23-cv-01538-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION 15 MARK S. AGUILAR, et al., [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. After conducting a preliminary review, the Court finds that it 20 should abstain from interfering in ongoing state court proceedings, and the petition should be 21 dismissed. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 25 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 26 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 1 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2 2001). 3 B. Background 4 Petitioner states he was arraigned in Kern County Superior Court on October 17, 2022, on 5 charges stemming from an inmate fight that occurred in Kern Valley State Prison. It appears that 6 Petitioner is currently awaiting trial and is represented by a public defender. Petitioner raises two 7 identifiable claims concerning the trial process: 1) He contends he was unconstitutionally and 8 unlawfully arraigned; and 2) He alleges counsel was ineffective in refusing to file certain motions 9 requested by Petitioner. (Doc. 1 at 1-2, 32-34.) It does not appear that Petitioner has sought relief 10 in the state courts other than within the trial proceedings. 11 C. Younger Abstention 12 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 13 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 14 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 15 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 16 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 17 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 18 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 19 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 20 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 21 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 22 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 23 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 24 from review of a claim. To be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 25 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 26 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 27 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 28 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 1 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 2 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 3 In the instant case, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important 4 interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 5 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 6 2003)). The trial court remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief. The 7 California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court are also adequate forums for 8 Petitioner to seek further relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the 9 Court recommends abstaining from interfering in state proceedings pursuant to Younger. 10 The Court notes that Petitioner also raises complaints concerning the conditions of 11 confinement. (Doc. 1 at 7-8.) He claims he is being denied cold water in his cell and access to 12 the law library. Such claims concerning conditions of confinement are not cognizable in a habeas 13 action and must be brought by way of a civil rights complaint. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 14 475, 485 (1973); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991). 15 ORDER 16 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 17 judge to this case. 18 RECOMMENDATION 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED 20 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 22 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 23 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 24 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 25 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 26 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 2 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: November 1, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28