1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTOPHER JOHN TROTTER, Case No. 1:18-cv-01643-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

THAT COURT ABSTAIN FROM

13 v. EXERCISING JURISDICTION AND

DISMISS CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

14 DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

16 ASSIGN CASE TO DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 Petitioner Christopher John Trotter, a state prisoner without counsel, seeks a writ of 19 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. The matter is before the court for 20 preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Because petitioner 21 has appealed his conviction and that appeal remains pending in state court, I recommend that the 22 court abstain from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss the case without prejudice. 23 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from interfering with 24 pending state proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971); 28 U.S.C. § 2283. 25 Federal courts abstain from addressing asserted violations of federal constitutional rights when 26 “(1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 27 interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 28 challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the 1 ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). 2 When these requirements are met, a district court must dismiss the action and lacks the discretion 3 to do otherwise, absent extraordinary circumstances. See Cook v. Harding, 190 F. Supp. 3d 921, 4 935, 938 (C.D. Cal. 2016), aff’d, 879 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018). Extraordinary circumstances 5 include a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary circumstance that would 6 make abstention inappropriate.” Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 766. 7 Conservation of judicial resources, considerations of “wise judicial administration,” and 8 interests in avoiding duplicative litigation provide another basis for abstention. See Colorado 9 River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). The Supreme Court 10 in Colorado River identified four factors that a federal court may consider in deciding whether to 11 abstain: (1) whether the state court first assumed jurisdiction over property; (2) the inconvenience 12 of the federal forum; (3) the desirability of avoiding piecemeal litigation; and (4) the order in 13 which jurisdiction was obtained by the concurrent forums. Id. at 818-19. The Supreme Court 14 later added two more factors: (5) whether federal or state law provides the rule of decision on the 15 merits and (6) whether the state court proceedings are inadequate to protect the federal litigant’s 16 rights. See Moses H. Cone Memorial Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 23 (1983). The 17 Ninth Circuit considers one more factor: (7) prevention of forum-shopping. See Travelers Indem. 18 Co. v. Madonna, 914 F.2d 1364, 1367-68 (9th Cir. 1990). No single factor is dispositive. See 19 Colorado River, 424 U.S. at 818-19. 20 Here, abstention is appropriate under both Younger and Colorado River. As for Younger 21 abstention, petitioner is still challenging his conviction on direct appeal. People v. Trotter, 22 No. C089651 (Cal. App. Ct. 3rd Dist. filed Jun. 10, 2019). The state criminal appeal implicates 23 the important state interest of fair adjudication of criminal charges. The appeal allows petitioner 24 an adequate opportunity to raise his claims; we have no reason to conclude otherwise. The 25 requested relief from this court—habeas relief—would have the practical effect of enjoining the 26 state proceeding because the state proceeding would be moot.1 27 1 Petitioner raises two claims. First, he contends that certain state actors took advantage of his 28 mental disabilities during state-court proceedings. ECF No. 1 at 1. Second, he argues that the 1 Abstention under Colorado River is appropriate as well. If petitioner succeeds in his 2 state-court proceeding, his petition in this case would be moot. This court’s decision would be on 3 the merits. The state proceeding is adequate to protect petitioner’s federal rights. Other factors 4 may weigh against abstention, but the critical concern under Colorado River—avoiding 5 duplicative proceedings—weighs heavily in favor of abstention. 6 In sum, both Younger and Colorado River counsel abstention. The court should abstain 7 from exercising jurisdiction and dismiss this case without prejudice. 8 A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no absolute right to appeal a district 9 court’s denial of a petition; he may appeal only in limited circumstances. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; 10 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003). Rule 11 Governing Section 2254 Cases 11 requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability when entering a final order 12 adverse to a petitioner. See also Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(a); United States v. Asrar, 116 F.3d 13 1268, 1270 (9th Cir. 1997). A certificate of appealability will not issue unless a petitioner makes 14 “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). This 15 standard requires the petitioner to show that “jurists of reason could disagree with the district 16 court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented 17 are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327; see Slack 18 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The petitioner must show “something more than the 19 absence of frivolity or the existence of mere good faith.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338. 20 Reasonable jurists would not disagree with our conclusion or find that petitioner should 21 proceed further. Thus, the court should decline to issue a certificate of appealability. 22 23

24 state trial court miscalculated his sentence credits in the abstract of judgment dated October 5, 2018. See ECF No. 1 at 1, 6; ECF No. 15 at 2-3. If this court grants habeas relief on the first 25 claim, petitioner’s direct appeal would be practically enjoined.

26 As for the second claim, it appears that the state trial court issued a new abstract of judgment on 27 December 17, 2018. See People v. Trotter, No. 16F6958 (Calaveras Sup. Ct. Dec. 17, 2018). If the new judgment corrected the alleged error identified by petitioner, the habeas claim might be 28 moot. In any event, petitioner must first present his claims in state court. 1 Order 2 The clerk of court is directed to assign this case to a U.S. District Court Judge. 3 IL Findings and Recommendations 4 I recommend that the court abstain from exercising jurisdiction, dismiss this case without 5 || prejudice, and decline to issue a certificate of appealability. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 6 | Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of 7 | California, these findings and recommendations are submitted to the U.S. District Court Judge 8 || presiding over this case. Within fourteen days of the service of the findings and 9 || recommendations, any party may file written objections to the findings and recommendations 10 || with the court and serve a copy on all parties. That document must be captioned “Objections to 11 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The presiding District Judge will then 12 | review the findings and recommendations under 28 U.S.C. 8 636(b)(1)(C). 13 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 ( _wais Dated: _ September 25, 2019 16 UNI STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 No. 202 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28