(PS) Nyquest v. Camoo et al, No. 2:2018cv01120 - Document 3 (E.D. Cal. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/7/18 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without leave to amend. Motion to proceed IFP 2 be denied without prejudice as moot. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. F&R referred to District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. Objections to F&R due within fourteen (14) days. (Kaminski, H)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARK NYQUEST, 12 13 14 No. 2:18-cv-1120-MCE-KJN PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND ROBERT CAMOO, et al., FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff Mark Nyquest, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action and 19 requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Pursuant 20 to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the case at any time if it determines that the 21 allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on 22 which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against an immune defendant. 23 Liberally construed, plaintiff’s complaint alleges that in plaintiff’s criminal case pending 24 in Placer County Superior Court, the judge improperly bullied plaintiff into accepting house arrest 25 by threatening to revoke plaintiff’s bail. Plaintiff purports to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 26 for violation of his constitutional right to liberty, naming Eugene Gini (a Placer County Superior 27 Court judge), Scott Owens (a Placer County prosecutor), Robert Camoo (a Placer County public 28 defender), and a bail bonds company as defendants. Plaintiff seeks an order restraining the state 1 1 trial court from violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights, placing plaintiff back on bail with a trial 2 date, restraining the trial court from remanding plaintiff to custody due to vague reasons, 3 preventing any abuses of power by the trial court, and taking away the qualified immunity of the 4 state trial court actors. (See generally ECF No. 1.) 5 Plaintiff’s present action is plainly precluded by the Younger abstention doctrine. See 6 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained: 7 “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in overlapping principles of equity, 8 comity, and federalism. We must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a state- 9 initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) the 10 federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; 11 and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing 12 so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” San Jose 13 Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 14 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations omitted). Here, plaintiff’s ongoing criminal case 15 is undoubtedly a state-initiated proceeding. The criminal case also implicates an important state 16 interest, i.e., vindication of the state’s criminal laws by virtue of a state judicial proceeding. 17 Additionally, plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in his state court 18 criminal case. Plaintiff may raise any objections based on federal constitutional rights before the 19 state trial court, and may also appeal adverse rulings to the state appellate courts. Finally, the 20 relief requested by plaintiff (including an order directing that plaintiff be placed back on bail) 21 would clearly interfere with the state court’s conduct of the criminal case. Consequently, 22 Younger abstention is required. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 24 1. The action be dismissed without leave to amend. 25 2. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this court (ECF No. 2) be denied 26 without prejudice as moot. 27 28 3. The Clerk of Court be directed to close this case. //// 2 1 In light of those recommendations, IT IS ALSO ORDERED that all pleading, discovery, 2 and motion practice in this action are STAYED pending resolution of the findings and 3 recommendations. With the exception of objections to the findings and recommendations, and 4 non-frivolous motions for emergency relief, the court will not entertain or respond to any motions 5 or filings until the findings and recommendations are resolved. 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) 8 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 11 shall be served on all parties and filed with the court within fourteen (14) days after service of the 12 objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 13 waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th 14 Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED AND RECOMMENDED. Dated: June 7, 2018 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.
