(PC) Houston v. Schubert, No. 2:2015cv02156 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/14/16 ORDERING the clerk of the court shall randomly assign a District Judge to this action. U.S. District Judge Troy L. Nunley randomly assigned to this action. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice, and all pending motions and requests be denied as moot. Motions and request 2 , 10 , and 13 referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 21 days. (Plummer, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Houston v. Schubert Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON LLOYD HOUSTON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. No. 2:15-cv-2156 AC P ORDER and 14 ANNE MARIE SCHUBERT, 15 Defendant. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 16 17 Plaintiff is a Sacramento County pretrial detainee, incarcerated at the Rio Cosumnes 18 Correctional Center, who proceeds pro se with this putative civil rights action filed under 42 19 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c). Pursuant to his original complaint filed October 15, 2015, and five subsequently filed 21 22 amended complaints, plaintiff challenges his bail ($645,000) as excessive, noting that he is 23 otherwise homeless. Plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of $645,000, in order to make bail, 24 plus “ten times” that amount in punitive damages. The variously named defendants include 25 Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, the Sacramento County Superior 26 Court, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, and Sacramento County. Plaintiff avers that 27 he has not sought to administratively exhaust this claim because “excessive bail is not a grievance 28 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 matter.” ECF No. 12 at 2. There is no indication that plaintiff has otherwise pursued this matter 2 in the state courts. 3 Review of plaintiff’s exhibits indicates that he was arrested on June 26, 2015. Review of 4 the online case access website operated by the Sacramento County Superior Court indicates that 5 plaintiff’s trial was recently continued, both on March 7 and March 10, 2016.1 6 Federal challenges to ongoing criminal proceedings are barred by the abstention doctrine 7 set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). A federal court must abstain under Younger if 8 the following four requirements are met: (1) a state initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the 9 proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal 10 constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the requested federal court action would 11 enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 12 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Roden, 495 F.3d 1143, 13 1149 (9th Cir. 2007). 14 Each of these factors is met in the instant case. Plaintiff’s state court criminal prosecution 15 is pending; by definition, criminal prosecutions implicate important state interests; plaintiff is not 16 barred from pursuing his implicit federal constitutional claim in his state criminal proceeding 17 (i.e., the alleged violation of the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against “excessive bail”); and 18 the remedy plaintiff requests of this court would effectively enjoin or otherwise significantly 19 disrupt the ongoing state criminal prosecution against plaintiff. For these reasons, the court finds 20 that plaintiff’s excessive bail claim is barred in this court by the Younger abstention doctrine. 21 Therefore, this action should be dismissed without prejudice, without independent consideration 22 of plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis or motion for summary judgment. 23 //// 24 1 25 26 27 28 This court may take judicial notice of its own records and the records of other courts. See United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Fed. R. Evid. 201 (court may take judicial notice of facts that are capable of accurate determination by sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned). See: https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCaseAccess/Criminal/CaseDetails?SourceSystemId=8&So urceKey=1523631 2 1 2 3 4 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a district judge to this action. Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice, and all pending motions and requests be denied as moot. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 6 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty-one days 7 after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 8 with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 9 and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 10 time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 11 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: March 14, 2016 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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.
