United States District Court, Northern District of California
July 16, 2003
MAILLIARD LUCIEN KING, PETITIONER,
SHERIFF DON HORSLEY, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Thelton Henderson, Senior District Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner, an inmate at the San Mateo County Jail, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He claims that his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment are being violated because he is being "prosecuted on false evidence" and there is "police and prosecutorial misconduct." Petition, p. 1. Petitioner alleges that his criminal trial is currently in progress in state court. Petitioner unsuccessfully raised the claims he raises here in petitions for writs of mandate and for review to the California Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of California.
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); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971). Younger abstention is required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional issues. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). Here, criminal proceedings are pending against petitioner in state court, and there is no allegation or indication that petitioner does not have an adequate opportunity to present his claims in those proceedings. Because a decision on the federal petition would interfere with the pending criminal proceedings in the state trial court, this Court must abstain from deciding the petition.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED without prejudice to petitioner filing a new action upon the completion of his prosecution and the completion of state court review of the conviction, if a conviction occurs. See Huffman v. Pursue. Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607-11 (1975) (holding that rationale of Younger applies to claims throughout appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding state court proceedings pending where criminal trial completed at time of abstention decision). The action is frivolous because it suffers from the same defect as another habeas petition filed by petitioner and recently dismissed on Younger abstention grounds. See King v. Horsley, C 03-1092 TEH.
Petitioner's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he paid the filing fee. (Docket # 2.) Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED as moot because the action is now being dismissed. (Docket # 3.) Petitioner's requests for judicial notice are DENIED. (Docket # 4, # 5.)
The clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.