(HC) Morrison v. Acquisto, No. 2:2023cv00559 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 5/25/2023 GRANTING petitioner's 2 application for leave to proceed ifp, DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action, and RECOMMENDING petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. Assigned and referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Yin, K)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Morrison v. Acquisto Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT ANDREW MORRISON, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:23-cv-00559-EFB (HC) v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STEVEN ACQUISTO, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 17 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 As discussed below, the petition must be dismissed. See Rule 4, 19 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (requiring summary dismissal of habeas petition if, upon initial 20 review by a judge, it plainly appears “that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 21 court”). Petitioner states that the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction under attack is “still 22 23 pending.” See ECF No. 1 at 1-2 (referencing case number C097455). Review of the online 24 docket for the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, confirms the same. Because 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 28 1 Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. That request is granted. Dockets.Justia.com 1 the appeal is still pending, the court must abstain from considering the instant petition. 2 See 2 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not enjoin pending 3 state criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 49, 53. Younger 4 abstention prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction when three criteria are met: 1) there are 5 ongoing state judicial proceedings; 2) an important state interest is involved; and 3) there is an 6 adequate opportunity to raise the federal question at issue in the state proceedings. H.C. ex rel. 7 Gordon v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 2000). Without question, state criminal 8 proceedings implicate important state interests, and California state courts provide an adequate 9 forum in which petitioner may pursue his claims on appeal. 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is 12 granted; and 13 2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 14 15 16 17 action. Further, IT IS RECOMMENDED that petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 22 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 23 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 24 2 25 26 27 28 Also of concern is whether petitioner’s state court conviction is even final for purposes of federal review. The habeas corpus statute imposes a one-year statute of limitations for filing non-capital habeas corpus petitions in federal court. In most cases, the one-year period will start to run on the date on which the state court judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or the expiration of time for seeking direct review, although the statute of limitations is tolled while a properly filed application for state post-conviction or other collateral review is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 2 1 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 2 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 3 § 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a 4 final order adverse to the applicant). 5 6 Dated: May 25, 2023. 7 8 9 10 11 12 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.
