1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVOOD KHADEMI, No. 2:19-cv-1603 AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS &

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. 19 Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the 20 costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 21 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 22 I. Petition 23 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (Habeas 24 Rules) are appropriately applied to proceedings undertaken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas 25 Rule 1(b). Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules requires the court to summarily dismiss a habeas petition 26 “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled 27 to relief in the district court.” “[A] petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without 28 leave to amend unless it appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave 1 granted.” Jarvis v. Nelson, 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971) (citations omitted). 2 Petitioner appears to challenge his confinement on the grounds that he was not arraigned, 3 the prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory evidence, there was no probable cause for his arrest, 4 and his counsel is ineffective and continues to request competency determinations. ECF No. 1 at 5 5-10. He appears to seek immediate release, was well as compensatory and punitive damages. 6 Id. at 15. 7 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the courts have jurisdiction to consider a habeas petition 8 brought by a pretrial detainee. McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) 9 (citations omitted). Under § 2241(c)(3), a pretrial detainee may seek a writ of habeas corpus 10 when “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 11 However, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), federal courts may not interfere with an 12 ongoing state criminal case. “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted in 13 overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 14 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2008) 15 (citations and footnote omitted). Younger abstention is required 16 if four requirements are met: (1) a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) 17 the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal 18 court action would enjoin the proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in 19 a way that Younger disapproves. 20 Id. at 1092 (citations omitted). 21 In the instant case, the court finds that all four requirements for exercising Younger 22 abstention are met. The state-initiated criminal proceeding against plaintiff appears to still be 23 ongoing; the proceeding implicates important state interests; to the extent plaintiff may have 24 federal constitutional challenges, he is not barred from raising them in the state criminal 25 proceeding; and this court’s failure to abstain would directly interfere with the state proceeding. 26 These factors demonstrate that the court should abstain from considering petitioner’s claims and 27 dismiss them. 28 //// wOASe 2 EVV PRIN □□□ MMU PIO VN ee POY VM VI

1 Il. Certificate of Appealability 2 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this court must 3 || issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant. A 4 | certificate of appealability may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the 5 || denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). For the reasons set forth in these 6 || findings and recommendations, a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right has 7 || not been made in this case. Therefore, no certificate of appealability should issue. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 9) is granted. 10 2. The Clerk of the Court shall randomly assign a United States District Judge to this 11 || action. 12 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed without prejudice. 14 2. This court decline to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 15 | § 2253. 16 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 17 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within twenty-one days 18 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 19 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 20 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that 21 || failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 22 | Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || DATED: June 19, 2020 ~ 24 CtAt0r2— Chane

ALLISON CLAIRE

25 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28