Arenas v. Pollard ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JEREMY ARENAS, Case No.: 21-CV-941 JLS (MSB) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas 18 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging a March 22, 2019 conviction in San 19 Diego County Superior Court, case number SCS303353, for which he is currently awaiting 20 resentencing after remand by the state appellate court. See ECF No. 1 (the “Petition”). 21 Petitioner has paid the $5.00 filing fee. See ECF No. 1-2. 22 ABSTENTION 23 It is evident that the Petition must be dismissed because the Court is barred from 24 considering Petitioner’s claims pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under 25 Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent 26 extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden 27 State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy 28 against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”) These 1 concerns are particularly important in the habeas context, where a state prisoner’s 2 conviction may be reversed on appeal, thus rendering the federal matter moot. Sherwood 3 v. Thompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 The Ninth Circuit has explained that “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) 5 there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate(s) important 6 state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 7 constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek(s) to enjoin’ or has ‘the 8 practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 9 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. 10 Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). 11 Each of these criteria is satisfied in this case. Petitioner acknowledges his criminal 12 case is ongoing in state court, as Petitioner indicates his case was “remanded by court of 13 appeal for a resentence” and “I am still waiting for my remand for a resentence.” Petition 14 at 5. It is also clear the state proceedings involve important state interests. Petitioner has 15 not shown he is unable to raise his federal claims in the state proceedings. Petitioner 16 currently presents claims alleging a denial of due process arising from the denial of a 17 severance motion on one of the three counts charged, insufficient evidence to support the 18 verdict as to requisite felonious intent using force or fear, and the trial court’s imposition 19 of an illegal sentence, see id. at 7–11, which are the types of claims state courts provide an 20 opportunity to raise on direct appeal. Indeed, Petitioner indicates he previously filed 21 actions in the state appellate and supreme courts raising the issues presented in the instant 22 Petition. See id. at 5, 7–8, 11. Finally, given that Petitioner requests, among other things, 23 that the Court “dismiss all charges & guarantee defendant immediate release,” id. at 10, as 24 well as “a reversal or dismissal and time served,” id. at 11, it is also evident federal action 25 would enjoin the ongoing state criminal proceeding. 26 Accordingly, abstention is required. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th 27 Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have 28 federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, 1 ||judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”); see also 2 || Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that, if Younger abstention applies, a 3 || court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action). 4 CONCLUSION 5 In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES the Petition WITHOUT 6 || PREJUDICE because the Court must abstain from interfering in the ongoing state 7 proceedings. The Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: May 21, 2021 . tt f te 10 on. Janis L. Sammartino 1 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28