The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING DISMISSAL OF ACTION
Plaintiff Micheal Taylor ("Plaintiff") is incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he filed the instant action on January 8, 2009. For the reasons stated below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without leave to amend.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the court determines that the action is legally "frivolous or malicious," fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment.
In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).
Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. He attempts to bring this section 1983 action against Judge Denise Whitehead, Deputy District Attorney Roger Wilson and attorneys "Nuttal and Coleman." He alleges that Defendants denied him his due process rights "in [not] obtaining a sensible modified release." Complaint, at 3. He also alleges that his chances of receiving a fair hearing have been "destroyed." Complaint, at 3.
For relief, Plaintiff requests that "this justice be reprimanded," that a change of venue motion be granted, that the facts of his case be taken into consideration, and that modified release be granted.
From the allegations in his complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is involved in an underlying, ongoing state criminal prosecution. Generally, the federal courts will not intervene in a pending criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances where the danger of irreparable harm is both great and immediate. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); see also Fort Belknap Indian Community, 43 F.3d 428, 431 (9th Cir. 1994) (abstention appropriate if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues).
Here, Plaintiff makes conclusory, unsupported allegations that his due process rights were violated by the denial of his request for modified release. He also alleges, again without factual support, that he cannot get a fair trial. These allegations do not ...