Opinion
No. CIV S-11-2899 WBS GGH P
01-03-2012
FRED DELBERT HARRINGTON, Plaintiff, v. AMY BABBITS, Public Defender, Defendant.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, proceeds pro se and seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has responded to the November 29, 2011, order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger doctrine.
The undersigned recommends that this action be dismissed because plaintiff 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).
Plaintiff is in custody in Shasta County Jail awaiting trial. Plaintiff states that his court appointed attorney is not properly doing her job and failing to properly investigate the case. Plaintiff seeks an injunction and different counsel. However, since plaintiff filed this case, he has been appointed new counsel, though plaintiff contends that new counsel is also deficient. Plaintiff alleges that counsel has not provided plaintiff copies of police paperwork or medical reports and has not properly investigated the case. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, therefore this claim is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's action be dismissed and this case closed.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH: AB
harr2899.dis