(HC) Potter v. State of Idaho, No. 2:2023cv02489 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 11/30/23 GRANTING 6 Motion to Proceed IFP and DIRECTING the Clerk to randomly assign a District Judge Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller added to case. I t is further RECOMMENDED that the 1 Petition be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. New Case Number: 2:23-cv-2489 KJM JDP (HC) (Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ONIS CARRABINE POTTER, 12 13 14 15 Petitioner, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. Case No. 2:23-cv-02489-JDP (HC) ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ECF No. 6 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PETITION BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A VIABLE CLAIM 17 ECF No. 1 18 Petitioner, an inmate in the Sacramento County Jail, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 19 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He acknowledges, however, that he has not yet been convicted. ECF No. 1 at 20 1. Thus, he is not entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. I recommend that his petition be 21 denied. I will grant his application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 6. 22 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 23 Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine 24 the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the 25 petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); 26 Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). 27 28 1 1 Federal habeas jurisdiction under section 2254 is available only where a petitioner is in 2 custody pursuant to a state court criminal judgment. See Stow v. Murashige, 389 F.3d 880, 886 3 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, petitioner acknowledges that he has not yet been convicted. ECF No. 1 at 4 1. Thus, he lacks standing to pursue habeas relief in this action. Additionally, given that state 5 court proceedings, in California and potentially in Idaho, appear to be ongoing, this action runs 6 afoul of the Younger abstention doctrine. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Younger v. 7 Harris, federal courts must abstain from enjoining state court criminal prosecutions in all but the 8 most exceptional circumstances. 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971). Petitioner has failed to identify such 9 circumstances here. 10 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 11 1. Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 6, is GRANTED. 12 2. The Clerk of Court shall assign a district judge to this action. 13 Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition, ECF No. 1, be DISMISSED for failure 14 to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 17 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez 23 v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: 27 28 November 30, 2023 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 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.