Talmadge v. Houser

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRETT ALAN JAMES TALMADGE, No. 23-3898 D.C. No. Petitioner - Appellant, 3:22-cv-00202-SLG-MMS v. MEMORANDUM* EARL HOUSER, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 14, 2025** Anchorage, Alaska

Before: GRABER, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Brett Talmadge was, when the district court ruled, awaiting trial in Superior Court in Alaska on 2019 charges of incest and sexual abuse of a minor. While that case was pending, in 2022 Petitioner filed the present habeas petition in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

federal district court in the District of Alaska. We granted a certificate of appealability on this issue: “whether the district court properly dismissed [Petitioner’s] 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).” Reviewing de novo, McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner sought dismissal of the state prosecution before trial. He argued at the district court that the state violated his speedy-trial rights as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment and that his counsel was ineffective by agreeing to continuances. Applying Younger’s “fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions,” 401 U.S. at 46, the district court dismissed the petition without prejudice.

Younger abstention normally applies when a petitioner who has not yet been convicted in state court asserts a speedy-trial affirmative defense to the state prosecution, that is, when the petitioner asks for a dismissal of the state charges before trial. Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900–01 (9th Cir. 2012). None of the extraordinary circumstances identified in Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980), is present here to preclude application of Younger. Petitioner seeks to enjoin an ongoing state-court criminal proceeding that implicates the important state interest of enforcing Alaska’s criminal laws prohibiting incest and sexual abuse of minors.

Petitioner can raise his speedy-trial arguments in the Alaska state courts. If convicted, he will be able to challenge his conviction in a new federal habeas petition, raising speedy-trial claims and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, once he has exhausted his state remedies. See Carden, 626 F.2d at 84–85 (“[Defendants’] appropriate remedy is to proceed to trial and thereafter raise their speedy trial claim if they wish to do so.”).

AFFIRMED.

Footnotes

[2] 23-3898

[3] 23-3898