Opinion
No. CIV S-09-2695 GGH P.
November 13, 2009
ORDER
Petitioner, a county jail inmate, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(1)-(2). Petitioner has responded to this court's October 14, 2009, order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger doctrine.
The court recommends that this action be dismissed because petitioner is challenging ongoing criminal proceedings. Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required when 1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; 2) state proceedings involve important state interests; and 3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issue. See Middlesex County Ethic Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
Petitioner, who is in pretrial detention, alleges that the trial court denied petitioner's request to be released on his own recognizance and instead ordered him detained. Petitioner alleges that the judge accepted the district attorney's argument without proper proof. The state proceedings afford petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise this issue. This claim is barred by theYounger abstention doctrine as it challenges ongoing criminal proceedings. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that petitioner was, or is, unable to challenge his detention by writ or otherwise in the California Court of Appeal.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed, with prejudice.