(HC) James v. Sheriff, Sacramento County ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:24-cv-0328 CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND 14 SHERIFF, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a Sacramento County pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges pretrial 19 proceedings with respect to Sacramento County criminal case no. 19FE021761. It does not 20 appear that petitioner has been convicted with respect to any charges filed in that case. 21 Federal courts cannot interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent 22 extraordinary circumstances which create a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 23 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). Irreparable injury does not exist in such situations if the threat to 24 plaintiff's federally protected rights may be eliminated by his defense of the criminal case. 25 Moreover, “even irreparable injury is insufficient [to permit interference with the proceeding] 26 unless it is ‘both great and immediate.’ ” Id. at 46 (quoting Fenner v. Boykin, 271 U.S. 240, 243- 27 44 (1926)). 28 ///// 1 “The Younger doctrine was borne of the concern that federal court injunctions might 2 unduly hamper a state in its prosecution of criminal laws.” Miofsky v. Superior Court, 703 F.2d 3 332, 336 (9th Cir. 1983). In practical terms, the Younger doctrine means that “ ‘only in the most 4 unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or 5 habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case 6 concluded in the state courts.’ ” Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.) (quoting Drury 7 v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972)). 8 Here, petitioner does not point to anything suggesting the great and immediate threat of 9 irreparable injury as a result of extraordinary circumstances necessary for this court to be justified 10 in reviewing ongoing state court proceedings. Accordingly, the court will recommend that 11 petitioner’s § 2241 petition be dismissed. 12 Petitioner also asks that the Sacramento County criminal proceedings be stayed pending 13 the outcome of this case. In light of the court’s recommendation that the § 2241 petition be 14 dismissed, a stay is not appropriate. 15 Petitioner’s motions to expedite resolution of his § 2241 petition will be denied as moot. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HERBY ORDERED that: 17 1. Petitioner’s requests that resolution of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition be expedited are 18 denied as moot; and 19 2. The Clerk of the Court assign a district court judge to this case. 20 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 21 1. Petitioner’s motion for a stay of state court proceedings (ECF No. 4) be denied. 22 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed pursuant to Younger v. 23 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 24 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 25 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 26 after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner party may file written 27 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate 28 Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections 1 | within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. 2 | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: February 21, 2024 aie } Kt | / p , a sia 4 CAROLYN K DELANEY 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8] 1 9 jame0328.you 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28