Opinion
CV-23-08516-PCT-GMS (DMF)
02-09-2024
Anthony Charles Hall, Petitioner, v. Ryan Thornell, et al., Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Honorable Deborah M. Fine United States Magistrate Judge
TO THE HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
I. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
Petitioner Anthony Charles Hall filed a pro se Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Amended Petition”) (Doc. 5), which the Court ordered Respondents to answer (Doc. 7). The Amended Petition is directed to Petitioner's manslaughter and theft of means of transportation convictions in Mohave County Superior Court (case number CR2021-00382), for which Petitioner was sentenced to a 26.5-year combined term of imprisonment (Doc. 5). This matter is on referral to the undersigned for further proceedings and a report and recommendation pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. 7 at 5).
Citation to the record indicates documents as displayed in the official Court electronic document filing system maintained by the District of Arizona under Case No. CV-23-08516-PCT-GMS (DMF).
This Report and Recommendation is directed to Petitioner's motion requesting an “Injunction” “to postpone any restitution request, or payments to the ‘alleged' victim regarding the convictions” at issue in these proceedings (Doc. 12). Petitioner asserts that the relief requested in his motion should be granted out of fairness (Id.).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, undersigned proceeds by Report and Recommendation on Petitioner's motion regarding restitution proceedings.
After ordered by the Court to respond to the motion (Doc. 14), Respondents filed a timely response stating:
Petitioner Anthony Charles Hall filed a motion requesting that this Court “postpone any restitution request or payments” until completion of his federal habeas corpus proceedings. Dkt. 12. This Court ordered a response. Dkt. 13. Hall's request appears moot.
When the state trial court imposed Hall's sentence, it reserved jurisdiction for restitution purposes for 120 days. Exh. J at 2. Apparently, no restitution request was made within that time because no restitution order appears in the state court record. Exh. K.(Doc. 16 at 1). To the response, Respondents attached the pertinent April 14, 2022, sentencing minute entry (Doc. 16-1 at 3-6, referred to as “Exhibit J”) reflecting that the superior court reserved jurisdiction for restitution for 120 days (Id. at 4). Respondents also attached a January 16, 2024, email from the Mohave County Superior Court stating that there is not a restitution order in the case (Doc. 16-1 at 8, referred to as “Exhibit K”).
No reply has been filed and the time for doing so has expired. In any event, a reply is not necessary for the Court to rule.
II. ANALYSIS
Respondents appear to be correct that no restitution was ordered in Petitioner's underlying criminal case, rendering Petitioner's motion moot (Doc. 12).
Regardless, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address restitution orders in these 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings. See Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 984 (9th Cir. 2010) (Section 2254 “does not confer jurisdiction over a habeas corpus petition raising an in-custody challenge to a restitution order.”). Thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Plaintiff's motion.
Further, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state criminal, quasi-criminal enforcement actions, or in civil “cases involving a state's interest in enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts,” absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is required regarding the matters raised in Plaintiff's pending motion (Doc. 12).
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Motion for Injunction for Courts to Postpone Restitution (Doc. 12) be denied.
This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. The parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. The parties shall have fourteen days within which to file responses to any objections. Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72.