Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Blount v. Sacramento District Court
January 7, 2009
REGINALD BLOUNT, PETITIONER,
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT COURT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER and FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has responded to the court's October 24, 2008, order to show cause why this action should not be dismissed pursuant to the Younger doctrine.
The court recommends that this action be dismissed because petitioner 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).
Petitioner contends that the trial court has allowed out of court statements to be admitted into evidence. The state proceedings afford petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise this issue. This claim is barred by the Younger abstention doctrine as it challenges ongoing criminal proceedings.
Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed, with prejudice.
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 twenty 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 ten 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).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...
Buy This Entire Record For