I. INTRODUCTION

18 On July 10, 2024, Demetrius King Brashear (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se, constructively filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 20 (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).) The Petition 21 states that Petitioner was sentenced in Los Angeles County Superior Court on 22 September 20, 2023. (Pet. at 2.) 2 Attached to the Petition are documents related to 23 24 25 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se petitioner gives prison or jail authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively filed on the 26 date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010). Here, 27 the Petition was filed in this Court on August 2, 2024. 2 The Court refers to the Petition by using the page numbers assigned by the CM- 28 ECF system. 1 that criminal case, which underlies this Petition, and Petitioner’s medical records. 2 (Pet. at 16-83.) As grounds for relief, Petitioner alleges that he was denied his 3 mental health medication for a lengthy period of time while incarcerated at a 4 California state prison, the jury in his criminal case was tainted, his appearance at 5 trial was defamatory, and he was denied access to the law library. (Pet. at 13-14.) 6 Because Petitioner’s criminal appeal is pending before the California State 7 Court of Appeal, the Court must abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 8 (1971), and dismiss the Petition without prejudice. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Federal courts must abstain from interfering in pending state proceedings 11 absent extraordinary circumstances that create a threat of irreparable injury. 12 Younger, 401 U.S. at 45–46. Abstention under Younger is warranted where the 13 state proceedings (1) are ongoing; (2) implicate important state interests; and (3) 14 provide an adequate opportunity to litigate the petitioner’s federal constitutional 15 claims. Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 16 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of Super. Ct. of State of Cal., 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th 17 Cir. 1994). A petitioner may avoid Younger abstention by demonstrating the 18 presence of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance 19 resulting in irreparable injury. See Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971). 20 First, this Court takes judicial notice of the publicly available state court 21 records3 showing that Petitioner’s appeal before the state appellate court remains 22 pending. See Docket (Register of Actions), Appellate Courts Case Information: 2nd 23 Appellate District (last visited Aug. 13, 2024) 24 https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=29 25 01536&doc_no=B334538&request_token=NiIwLSEnXkw3WyBFSCNNWEtIME 26 27 3 See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Harris v. Cty. of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131–32 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding a district court may take judicial notice of undisputed matters of 28 public record including documents on file in federal or state courts). 1 w6USxXICNeUzlRMCAgCg%3D%3D. The pendency of the matter before the 2 state court weighs in favor of abstention. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 3 (9th Cir. 1972) (stating that only in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant 4 entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until 5 after a judgment has been appealed from, and the case has been concluded in state 6 courts). 7 Second, the state court proceedings implicate important state interests, 8 particularly the State of California’s interest in the order and integrity of its criminal 9 proceedings. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“[T]he States’ interest 10 in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one 11 of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering 12 equitable types of relief.”). Accordingly, the second Younger factor weighs in favor 13 of abstention. 14 Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to raise any federal habeas 15 claims in his pending state court appeal. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 16 1, 15 (1987) (finding that a federal court should assume that state procedures will 17 afford adequate opportunity for consideration of constitutional claims “in the 18 absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary”). Therefore, the final Younger 19 factor also weighs in favor of abstention. 20 Finally, Petitioner has not alleged facts showing bad faith, harassment, 21 extraordinary circumstances, or irreparable injury. Because all three criteria for 22 Younger abstention apply and there is no compelling reason for federal intervention 23 at this time, the Court abstains from interfering with Petitioner’s pending state court 24 proceedings. See Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 435. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 | IN. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. All 3 || pending motions are denied as moot. 4 5 || DATED: August 28, 2024 □ ‘ 4h 2a fl

7 HON. WESLEY L. HSU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28