From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cisneros v. Donnellan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION
Jun 29, 2015
No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2015)

Opinion

No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR)

06-29-2015

MIGUEL ANGEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN DONNELLAN, et. al., Defendants.


ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a detainee incarcerated at San Mateo County Jail. Plaintiff is awaiting trial and states that his attorney is not properly representing him and important documents and evidence are being hidden. Plaintiff seeks for this court to investigate the handling of his case.

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). Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions absent a showing of the state's bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute challenged is "flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions." Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54 (cost, anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be unconstitutional in every "clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner" it is applied). Abstention may be inappropriate in the "extraordinary circumstance" that (1) the party seeking relief in federal court does not have an adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief, see Mockaitis v. Harcleroad, 104 F.3d 1522, 1528 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44), or (2) the state tribunal is incompetent by reason of bias, see Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564, 577-79 (1973). A party who alleges bias must overcome a presumption of honesty and integrity in those serving as adjudicators. See Hirsh v. Justices of the Supreme Court of Cal., 67 F.3d 708, 713 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff shall show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to Younger.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff shall show cause by within twenty-one (21) days, why this case should not be dismissed. Failure to reply will result in dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 29, 2015.

/s/_________

NANDOR J. VADAS

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Cisneros v. Donnellan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION
Jun 29, 2015
No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2015)
Case details for

Cisneros v. Donnellan

Case Details

Full title:MIGUEL ANGEL CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN DONNELLAN, et. al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EUREKA DIVISION

Date published: Jun 29, 2015

Citations

No. C 15-2019 NJV (PR) (N.D. Cal. Jun. 29, 2015)