(HC) Beavers v. Kettering, No. 1:2019cv00521 - Document 8 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS that the Court abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss case without prejudice 1 . ORDER directing Clerk of Court to assign case to District Judge. Case assigned and referred to District Judge Dale A. Drozd. Objections to F&R's due within 14-Days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 9/24/2019. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE DUPREE BEAVERS, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. Case No. 1:19-cv-00521-JDP (HC) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COURT ABSTAIN FROM EXERCISING JURISDICTION AND DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE JEFF KETTERING, ECF No. 1 Respondent. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 Petitioner Eddie Dupree Beavers, who is on probation, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 18 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He proceeds without counsel. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the 19 court for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because 20 the petition indicated that petitioner was still challenging his conviction in state court, the court 21 ordered petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice. 22 ECF No. 6. Months have passed since the order to show cause issued, and petitioner has not 23 responded. Accordingly, I recommend that the court abstain from exercising jurisdiction and 24 dismiss the case without prejudice. 25 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from interfering with 26 pending state proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 27 Federal courts abstain from addressing asserted violations of federal constitutional rights when 28 1 1 “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 2 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 3 challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the 4 ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). 5 When these requirements are met, a district court must dismiss the action and lacks the discretion 6 to do otherwise, absent extraordinary circumstances. See Cook v. Harding, 190 F. Supp. 3d 921, 7 935, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). Extraordinary circumstances 8 include a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would 9 make abstention inappropriate.” Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 766. 10 Conservation of judicial resources, considerations of “wise judicial administration,” and 11 interests in avoiding duplicative litigation provide another basis for abstention. See Colorado 12 River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). The Supreme Court 13 in Colorado River identified four factors that a federal court may consider in deciding whether to 14 abstain: (1) whether the state court first assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) the inconvenience 15 of the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and (4) the order in 16 which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums. Id. at 818-19. The Supreme Court 17 later added two more factors: (5) whether federal or state law provides the rule of decision on the 18 merits and (6) whether the state court proceedings are inadequate to protect the federal litigant’s 19 rights. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 23 (1983). The 20 Ninth Circuit considers a seventh factor: prevention of forum shopping. See Travelers Indem. Co. 21 v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1367-68 (9th Cir. 1990). No single factor is dispositive. See 22 Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-19. 23 Here, abstention is appropriate under both Younger and Colorado River. As for Younger 24 abstention, petitioner is still challenging his conviction in a state habeas proceeding. ECF No. 1 25 at 5. The state proceeding implicates the important state interest of fair adjudication of criminal 26 charges. The proceeding allows petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional 27 challenges; we have no reason to conclude otherwise. The requested relief from this court— 28 habeas relief—would have the practical effect of enjoining the state proceeding because the state 2 1 proceeding would be moot. 2 Abstention under Colorado River seems appropriate as well. If petitioner succeeds in his 3 state-court proceeding, his petition in this case would be moot. This court’s decision would be on 4 the merits. The state proceeding is adequate to protect petitioner’s federal rights. Other factors 5 may weigh against abstention, but the critical concern under Colorado River—avoiding 6 duplicative proceedings—appears to weigh heavily in favor of abstention. 7 8 9 In sum, both Younger and Colorado River counsel in favor of abstention. The court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss this case without prejudice. I. 10 11 Order The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a U.S. District Court Judge. II. 12 Findings and Recommendations I recommend that the court abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss this case 13 without prejudice. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice 14 for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, these findings and 15 recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge presiding over this case. Within 16 fourteen days of the service of the findings and recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections to the findings and recommendations with the court and serve a copy on all parties. 18 That document must be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 19 Recommendations.” The presiding District Judge will then review the findings and 20 recommendations under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 24, 2019 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 No. 202 28 3

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.