GREGORY SHEHEE V. LEROY BACA, No. 09-56130 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 23 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, aka Gregory Shehee, No. 09-56130 D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06480-FMC-E Petitioner - Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. LEROY BACA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 8, 2014 Pasadena, California Before: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Petitioner Gregory Shehee appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing his application for habeas relief pursuant to the abstention principles established in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013), we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Petitioner’s application for habeas relief. Younger abstention generally is appropriate when "(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions." Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, a petitioner seeks to adjudicate in federal court the merits of a speedy trial claim before the state-court proceeding concludes, Younger abstention is proper "unless the petitioner [can] show that ‘special circumstances’ warrant[] federal intervention." Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). At the time the district court dismissed Petitioner’s application, his state commitment proceedings remained ongoing. No "special circumstances" existed to warrant departure from the Younger rule. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.