Jasmine Benard Austion v. Alex Villaneuva

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 JASMINE BENARD AUSTION, Case No. 2:20-cv-10898-ODW (AFM) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. [14] SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, [15] Respondent. [17] BACKGROUND [18] Petitioner is currently in state custody awaiting trial on criminal charges of [19] domestic violence, rape, and resisting arrest. Petitioner previously filed a habeas [20] corpus petition in this Court, in which he sought to enjoin the state court criminal [21] proceedings on the basis of an alleged violation of his right to a speedy trial. Case [22] No. 2:20-cv-08741-ODW(AFM). On November 10, 2020, judgment was entered [23] dismissing that petition without prejudice based upon the Court’s determination that [24] abstention was required. [25] On November 30, 2020, Petitioner filed the present petition for a writ of habeas [26] corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , in which he again challenges the pending [27] criminal trial. On December 7, 2020, the Court issued an order to show cause why [28] 1 the petition should not be dismissed based upon abstention. (ECF No. 4.) In his 2 response to the order, Petitioner asserts that he has exhausted his state remedies with 3 respect to his claims. (ECF No. 5.) Thereafter, Petitioner filed a first amended petition 4 challenging the pending state proceedings. The first amended petition alleges that 5 Petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated because: (1) the victim’s 6 inconsistent statements are inadmissible and (2) the prosecutor elicited false evidence 7 regarding the victim’s statements. (ECF No. 6 at 5-6.) For the following reasons, the 8 petition is subject to summary dismissal. 9 DISCUSSION 10 “Fundamental principles of comity and federalism prohibit the federal courts 11 from enjoining ongoing state proceedings except under ‘extraordinary 12 circumstances.’” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting 13 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971)). The longstanding public policy against 14 federal court interference with pending state court proceedings is sufficiently 15 important that federal courts may raise abstention sua sponte. See Hoye v. City of 16 Oakland, 653 F.3d 835 , 843 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011); Citizens for Free Speech, LLC v. 17 Cnty. of Alameda, 953 F.3d 655, 658 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he court may raise 18 abstention of its own accord at any stage of the litigation.”) (citing Bellotti v. Baird, [19] 428 U.S. 132 , 143 n.10 (1976)). Younger abstention is appropriate where: “(1) there 20 is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 21 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 22 constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the 23 practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Page v. King, 932 24 F.3d 898, 901-902 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763 , 765 25 (9th Cir. 2018) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 26 In this case, all the Younger criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner has not yet 27 been convicted or sentenced. Thus, criminal proceedings are ongoing. Second, it is 28 beyond dispute that state criminal proceedings implicate important state interests, 1 and states have an important interest in passing upon and correction violations of a 2 criminal defendant’s rights. See, e.g., Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) 3 (“This Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal 4 justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the 5 considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.”) 6 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45 ); Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1182 , 1185 7 (C.D. Cal. 2003) (states have important interest in addressing violations of criminal 8 defendant’s rights, such that Youngerabstention appropriate where petitioner’s direct 9 appeal pending in state court of appeal). Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity 10 in the state trial and appellate proceedings to resolve any federal questions that may 11 have arisen during the proceedings, including an alleged violation of due process 12 stemming from the allegedly inadmissible or false statements. See Middlesex Cnty. 13 Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (where vital state 14 interests involved, federal court should abstain unless state law clearly bars 15 interposition of constitutional claims) (citations and quotations omitted); Pennzoil 16 Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (federal court should assume state 17 procedures will afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional 18 claims in absence of unambiguous authority to contrary). Fourth, granting the relief 19 Petitioner apparently seeks – dismissing the charges against him – would necessarily 20 interfere with the state criminal proceedings. 21 Because the Younger requirements are satisfied in this case, abstention applies 22 to the petition unless Petitioner can demonstrate that “extraordinary circumstances” 23 warrant federal intervention. Younger, 401 U.S. at 53 . “Only in cases of proven 24 harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of 25 obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where 26 irreparable injury can be shown is federal injunctive relief against pending state 27 prosecutions appropriate.” Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). Petitioner does 28 not allege, and nothing suggests, that such extraordinary circumstances exist here. 1 || The fact that Petitioner may have exhausted his state remedies with respect to his pre2 || trial or pre-conviction claims does not alter the abstention analysis. 3 Because Younger abstention is required, the petition must be dismissed 4 || without prejudice to its refiling after Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings 5 || Gncluding his direct appeal) are completed and his federal claims have been properly 6 || presented to the California courts. See Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th 7 || Cir. 1988) (Younger abstention requires dismissal of the federal action); Gomez v. 8 || FBI, 2017 WL 5668027 , at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2017) (summary dismissal 9 || warranted where all of the Younger requirements were satisfied and no extraordinary 10 || circumstances existed). 11 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that this action be dismissed without 12 || prejudice. 13 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 14 SN 15 || DATED: January 15, 2021 chLypat [16] OTIS D. WRIGHT, I 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE