Opinion
EDCV 21-1593-SVW (KK)
10-04-2021
Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden
Present: Honorable KENLY KIYA KATO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings: Order to Show Cause Why This Action Should Not Be Dismissed Because Abstention Is Required
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 17, 2021, Petitioner Robert Michael Vanleeuwen (“Petitioner”), a pre-trial detainee at Cois M. Byrd Detention Center, constructively filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). ECF Docket Nos. (“Dkts.”) 1, 1-2. Petitioner appears to challenge his pretrial confinement due to criminal charges pending in Riverside County Superior Court and set forth two grounds for habeas relief: (1) “Petitioner was engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment rights to Petition and Free Speech” and (2) “[I]t [is] a violation of due process when a prosecutor pursues charges in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional and statutory rights.” Id. at 1, 23. As discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed because abstention is required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971) (“Younger”).
Under the “mailbox rule, ” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
II. THE PETITION IS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL BECAUSE YOUNGER ABSTENTION IS REQUIRED
A. APPLICABLE LAW
When a state prisoner “is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). “[T]he general grant of habeas authority in [28 U.S.C. § 2241] is available for challenges by a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment [such as] a defendant in pre-trial detention[.]” Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) (holding a pretrial detainee's request for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) is properly brought); Rosenbalm v. Mendocino Superior Ct., No. C 06-7412 SI(PR), 2007 WL 878522, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2007) (“This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) by a person who is in custody but not yet convicted or sentenced.”).
Principles of comity and federalism, however, require federal courts to abstain from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45. The Ninth Circuit has held abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2) the proceeding “implicate[s] important state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges”; and (4) the requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the practical effect of enjoining” the ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)).
“Extraordinary circumstances, ” may warrant exception to the “fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, 53-54; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900-01 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding “abstention principles . . . prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances' warrant federal intervention” (citing Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980))). To demonstrate an exception to Younger, a petitioner must show: (1) he would suffer irreparable harm that is “both great and immediate” if the federal court declines jurisdiction; (2) there is bad faith or harassment, on the part of state, in prosecuting him; or (3) the state court system is biased against Petitioner's federal claim. See Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124-25 (1975); Brown, 676 F.3d at 901 (citing Carden, 626 F.2d at 83).
B. ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Petitioner is a pretrial detainee with a criminal case pending in the Riverside County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 1, 4. Accordingly, the Petition is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). See Stow, 389 F.3d at 886.
Petitioner challenges various aspects of his ongoing state criminal proceedings, such as the trial court's issuance of a “criminal protective order[], ” and seeks relief, including dismissal of his criminal charges. Dkt. 1 at 4. Therefore, abstention is appropriate because all four Younger abstention criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner has an ongoing state judicial proceeding as he awaits trial in his criminal case in Riverside County Superior Court. Id. at 1, 4. Second, the resolution of state criminal proceedings clearly implicates important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“The right to formulate and enforce penal sanctions is an important aspect of the sovereignty retained by the States.” (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 46)); Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432 (“Proceedings necessary for the vindication of important state policies or for the functioning of the state judicial system also evidence the state's substantial interest in the litigation.”). Third, Petitioner has “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges, ” either at the trial or appellate level, and there appears to be nothing preventing Petitioner from doing so. See Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765. Fourth, habeas relief from this Court in the form of release would have the “practical effect” of enjoining the state court proceedings. See Bowell v. Paramo, No. CV-17-9313-TJH (MAA), 2018 WL 4735721, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2018), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 4698250 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018), certificate of appealability denied, No. 18-56319, 2018 WL 6978341 (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2018) (finding if the court were to grant emergency release, “it necessarily would entail interference because the ongoing state proceeding effectively would be terminated” (citing San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Com. Pol. Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2008))).
Petitioner appears to have filed habeas petitions challenging various aspects of his pre-trial detention in the California Court of Appeal in case numbers E077508 and E077361. Dkt. 1 at 2.
Moreover, Petitioner fails to identify any “extraordinary circumstances” warranting the Court's interference as an exception under Younger. Petitioner provides no proof that he has been the subject of harassment or that his continued prosecution is in bad faith and without hope of obtaining a valid conviction. See Brown, 676 F.3d at 901. Petitioner's various allegations, even liberally construed, are conclusory and unsupported. See Collins v. People of the State of Cal., No. CV-16-03703-DMG (KS), 2016 WL 4161973, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2016) (“Federal intervention cannot be predicated on conclusory allegations and Petitioner provides no proof that his continued prosecution by the state actually stems from bad faith and harassment and not some other basis.”). Furthermore, Petitioner has not shown he will suffer “irreparable injury” by waiting until the state court proceedings are concluded to bring his claims in this Court. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 (holding “irreparable injury is insufficient unless it is ‘both great and immediate'”).
Hence, under the circumstances of the instant case, abstention under Younger is warranted.
III. ORDER
For the above reasons, the Petition appears subject to dismissal. Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Court should not dismiss the Petition because abstention is required under Younger. Petitioner's response to this Order must be received no later than October 25, 2021. Petitioner must respond to this Order by choosing one of the following options:
1. Option One: Petitioner may file a written response informing the Court of any reason demonstrating Petitioner is entitled to raise his First Amendment and due process claims on federal habeas corpus at this time or extraordinary circumstances warranting this Court's immediate intervention in Petitioner's state criminal proceedings.
2. Option Two: Petitioner may file a First Amended Petition curing the above referenced deficiencies. The First Amended Petition shall be complete in itself. It shall not refer in any manner to the original Petition. In other words, Petitioner must start over when preparing the First Amended Petition. If Petitioner chooses to file a First Amended Petition, he must clearly designate on the face of the document that it is the “First Amended Petition, ” it must bear the docket number assigned to this case, and it must be retyped or rewritten in its entirety, preferably on the court-approved form.
3. Option Three: Petitioner may voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. Petitioner may request a voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The Clerk of Court has attached a Notice of Dismissal form. However, the Court warns any dismissed claims may be later subject to the statute of limitations, because “[a] 1-year period of limitation shall apply to an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).
The Court expressly warns Petitioner that failure to timely file a response to this Order will result in the Court dismissing this action without prejudice because abstention is required and/or for his failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order on Petitioner at his current address of record and provide Petitioner with a blank form Petition for his use in filing a First Amended Petition.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY 28 U.S.C. § 2254
INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
1. To use this form, you must be a person who either is currently serving a sentence under a judgment against you in a California state court, or will be serving a sentence in the future under a judgment against you in a California state court. You are asking for relief from the conviction and/or the sentence. This form is your petition for relief.
2. In this petition, you may challenge the judgment entered by only one California state court. If you want to challenge judgments entered by more than one California state court, you must file a separate petition for each court.
3. Make sure the form is typed or neatly handwritten. You must tell the truth and sign the form. If you make a false statement of a material fact, you may be prosecuted for perjury.
4. Answer all the questions. You do not need to cite case law, but you do need to state the federal legal theory and operative facts in support of each ground. You may submit additional pages if necessary. If you do not fill out the form properly, you will be asked to submit additional or correct information. If you want to submit a legal brief or arguments, you may attach a separate memorandum.
5. You must include in this petition all the grounds for relief from the conviction and/or sentence that you challenge. You must also state the facts that support each ground. If you fail to set forth all the grounds in this petition, you may be barred from presenting additional grounds at a later date.
6. You must pay a fee of $5.00. If the fee is paid, your petition will be filed. If you cannot afford the fee, you may ask to proceed in forma pauperis (as a poor person). To do that, you must fill out and sign the declaration of the last two pages of the form. Also, you must have an authorized officer at the penal institution complete the certificate as to the amount of money and securities on deposit to your credit in any account at the institution. If your prison account exceeds $25.00, you must pay the filing fee.
7. When you have completed the form, send the original and two copies to the following address:
Clerk of the United States District Court for the Central District of California United States Courthouse ATTN: Intake/Docket Section 255 East Temple Street, Suite TS-134 Los Angeles, California 90012
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING (check appropriate number):
This petition concerns:
1. [ ] a conviction and/or sentence.
2. [ ] prison discipline.
3. [ ] a parole problem.
4. [ ] other.