Octavio Romero v. State of California et al

Filing 3

ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION by Judge Dale S. Fischer, re Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) 1 : (See document for details.) For the reasons set forth above, the reference to the magistrate judge is vacated, and the Petition is summarily dismissed without prejudice. A judgment of dismissal of the entire action shall be entered accordingly. Any and all pending motions are terminated. (rla)

Download PDF

1 2 3 FILED - SOUTHERN DIVISION CLERK, u.S. DISTRICT COURT 4 HAY - 3 2012 5 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY DEPUTY 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 OCTAVIO ROMERO, Petitioner, 13 ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION v. 14 15 Case No. EDCV 12-00567 DSF (AN) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et aI., 16 Respondents. 17 18 I. Summary 19 20 On April 17,20 12,pro se petitioner Octavio Romero filed his pending habeas petition 21 ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254"). For the reasons discussed below, the 22 Court finds the Petition is subject to summary dismissal based upon the abstention doctrine 23 announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746 (1971), which is more 24 commonly referred to as the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 25 III 26 III 27 III 28 III 1 II. Discussion 2 A. Standard of Review 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 4 Courts mandates the summary dismissal of a Section 2254 petition "[i]f it plainly appears 5 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 6 district court." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foIl. § 2254. Local Rule 72-3.2 of this Court also 7 authorizes a magistrate judge to prepare a proposed order for summary dismissal and a 8 proposed judgment for district judge if it plainly appears from the face of petition that 9 petitioner is not entitled to relief. 10 B. Romero's Petition 11 The Petition, which is not prepared on this Court's approved petition form, principally 12 recites portions of the Constitution and federal habeas statutes, and is primarily filled with 13 allegations that are conclusory, unintelligible, and fanciful. However, a few of the 14 intelligible allegations in the Petition and Petitioner's accompanying affidavits, along with 15 the official records ofthe California Superior Court for San Bernardino County,!1 establish 16 the following. 17 On March 8, 2012, Romero was arrested for murder and detained at the West Valley 18 Detention Center, which is a county jail operated by the Sheriff-Coroner's Department for 19 San Bernardino County. His arrest and detention relate to a criminal case pending in the San 20 Bernardino Superior Court (case no. FVI 1200578) where he is charged with murder by way 21 of an information. On March 12, 2012, Romero initially appeared before Judge Lorenzo R. 22 Balderrama. The official records of the San Bernardino Superior Court further establish 23 Romero's arraignment is currently set for May 3,2012. Romero's Petition purports to raise 24 five claims for the purpose ofattacking his arrest and detention in his pending state criminal 25 26 27 28 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court records for the County of San Bernardino for Petitioner's case available on the internet at http://openaccess.sb-court.org. See Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 815 (9th Cir. 2002) (federal courts may take judicial notice of relevant state court records in federal habeas proceedings). II Page 2 1 case. (Pet. at 1, 4-5.) His Petition also appears to incorporate a purported "counterclaim" 2 for damages against the arresting officers and jail personnel. 3 C. Analysis 4 To the extent Romero appears to challenge his recent arrest and detention relating to 5 his pending state criminal case for murder, this Court lacks § 2254 jurisdiction because 6 Romero is not "in custody pursuant to the judgment ofa State court." § 2254(a). Further, in 7 the event Romero is convicted and sentenced in his pending state case, any federal 8 constitutional claims he may have stemming from his judgment of conviction for murder 9 must first be exhausted on direct or collateral review in the state courts before he can seek 10 § 2254 relief from this Court. § 2254 (b)( 1)(A). 11 Additionally, under the Younger Abstention Doctrine, this Court is barred from 12 directly interfering with Romero's ongoing state criminal proceedings. Federal courts may 13 raise the issue of Younger abstention sua sponte. Martinezv. NewportBeach City, 125 FJd 14 777, 781, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Green v. City o/Tucson, 255 15 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143-144, n. 10,96 S. Ct. 16 2857 (1976)); see also San Remo Hotel v. City and Cnty. o/S.F., 145 F.3d 1095, 1103, n. 17 5 (9th Cir. 1998). The doctrine is based upon principles of comity and federalism, which 18 provide a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state proceedings except under 19 special or extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54; Lebbos v. Judges 0/ 20 Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty., 883 F.2d 810,813 (9th Cir. 1989) ("Abstention is appropriate 21 based on 'interests of comity and federalism [that] counsel federal courts to abstain from 22 jurisdiction whenever federal claims have been or could be presented in ongoing state 23 judicial proceedings that concern important state interests. '''). Abstention is proper 24 regardless of whether the applicant seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, or damages. 25 See Mann v. Jeff, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986) ("When a state criminal prosecution 26 has begun, the Younger rule directly bars a declaratoryjudgment action" as well as a section 27 1983 action for damages "where such an action would have a substantially disruptive effect 28 upon ongoing state criminal proceedings."); Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 984 (9th Page 3 1 Cir. 2004) (Younger abstention applies to actions for damages). Younger abstention is 2 required when: (1) state judicial proceedings are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve 3 important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to raise 4 the constitutional issue. Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass 'n, 457 U.S. 5 423,432, 102 S. Ct. 2515 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges ofthe Super. Ct., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th 6 Cir. 1994). Where there is an "opportunity" to present the claims in ongoing state 7 proceedings, "[n]o more is required to invoke Younger abstention." Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 8 327, 337, 97 S. Ct. 1211 (1977). The pertinent inquiry is whether the state proceedings 9 afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 10 415,430,99 S. Ct. 2371 (1979). The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate 11 proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted 12 before federal court intervention is permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal 13 trials were completed at time ofabstention decision, state court proceedings still considered 14 pending). 15 Here, all of the Younger requirements for abstention are satisfied. Romero's state 16 criminal prosecution for murder is ongoing. The State ofCalifomia's interest in prosecuting 17 those charged with having violated its criminal laws is indisputable. Equally without 18 question is that Romero has the opportunity to raise any constitutional claims relating to his 19 arrest, detention, and the pending state murder charges in the state trial and appellate courts. 20 See GulfOffshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 477-78, 101 S. Ct. 2870 (1981) 21 (holding there is a presumption state courts enjoy concurrentjurisdiction, and "[t]he general 22 principle ofstate-courtjurisdiction over cases arising under federal laws is straightforward: 23 state courts may assume subject-matter jurisdiction over a federal cause of action absent 24 provision by Congress to the contrary or disabling incompatibility between the federal claim 25 and state-court adjudication."); Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 224 (the existence of an opportunity to 26 raise federal claims in state proceedings requires abstention). Indeed, § 2254 relieffrom this 27 Court is unavailable unless Romero exhausts any federal constitutional claims he may have 28 by fairly presenting them to the state high court on direct or collateral review. Finally, Page 4 1 Romero's Petition and attachments also fail to allege or show the existence of any special 2 or extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Younger. Younger, 401 U.S. at 48-50. 3 III. Conclusion 4 For the reasons set forth above, the reference to the magistrate judge is vacated, and 5 the Petition is summarily dismissed without prejudice. Ajudgment ofdismissal ofthe entire 6 action shall be entered accordingly. Any and all pending motions are terminated. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 11 DATED: May 3,2012 DALE S. FISCHER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 Presented by: 15 16 ... ~--_ .. _- 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?