BACKGROUND

20 Petitioner alleges the following: 21 In Los Angeles County Superior Court case number OWC00769, Petitioner was 22 charged with one count of indecent exposure (Cal. Penal Code § 314(1)), two counts of 23 resisting arrest (Cal. Penal Code § 148(a)(1)), and one count of failure to appear (Cal. 24 Penal Code § 853.7). (Pet. at 2.) Petitioner has not yet been convicted, and these charges 25 are still pending. (Id.) 26 27 28 1 On October 27, 2020, the trial court found that Petitioner had failed to appear on four 2 prior occasions and ordered that he be taken into custody. (Id. at 5-6.) Petitioner ultimately 3 was released on bond from the Los Angeles County Jail on November 6, 2020. (Id. at 2.) 4 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS 5 Petitioner asserts the following claims: 6 1. The trial court terminated Petitioner’s self-representation in violation of the 7 Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; 8 2. Respondent denied Petitioner access to the court, which caused his failure to 9 appear, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; 10 3. The trial court denied Petitioner a fair trial by allowing the prosecutor to sign 11 the complaint, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments; 12 4. The trial court denied Petitioner’s motion to compel disclosure of exculpatory 13 evidence in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and 14 5. The court-appointed investigator failed to appear in court and failed to provide 15 Petitioner with exculpatory evidence, in violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth 16 Amendments. 17 (Pet. at 5-6.) 18 DISCUSSION 19 I. DUTY TO SCREEN 20 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 21 Courts mandates the summary dismissal of a Section 2254 petition "[i]f it plainly appears 22 from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 23 district court." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the reasons set forth below, the Petition 24 should be summarily dismissed. 25 II. THE PETITION SHOULD BE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE 26 It is clear on the face of the Petition that the underlying criminal proceedings against 27 Petitioner are still pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Pet. at 2, 5-6.) 28 1 electronically available dockets for the California Court of Appeal and the California 2 Supreme Court. These dockets reveal that Petitioner has not brought any proceeding in 3 either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court pertaining to the 4 underlying criminal case.1 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Petition should 5 be dismissed without prejudice. 6 A. The Court Should Abstain From Adjudicating the Petition 7 The Court should abstain from considering Petitioner’s claims pursuant to Younger v. 8 Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which establishes that under principles of comity and 9 federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 10 granting injunctions or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 44; see 11 also Middlesex County Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 12 (1982). The Younger abstention doctrine also applies to claims raised in federal habeas 13 corpus proceedings. Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 1998); Carden v. 14 State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-85 (9th Cir. 1980). 15 Abstention in favor of state judicial proceedings is required if the proceedings are 16 ongoing, implicate important state interests, and afford an adequate opportunity to raise 17 federal questions, and if the federal relief sought would interfere in some manner with the 18 state court litigation. Middlesex County Ethics Comm'n, 457 U.S. at 432; see also Green v. 19 City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1094 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc). Nevertheless, the federal 20 courts will not abstain if the movant can establish that the state proceedings are being 21 undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or that some other "extraordinary 22 circumstances" exist, such as proceedings pursuant to a "flagrantly" unconstitutional 23 statute. Younger, 401 U.S. at 49, 53-54. 24 Here, all the prerequisites to the application of Younger abstention have been met. 25 First, Petitioner is currently the subject of a criminal proceeding in state court, which is 26 ongoing and has not reached final adjudication. H.C. v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir. 27 28 1 2000); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). Second, 2 the state undeniably has an important interest in protecting the public by the filing and 3 prosecuting of criminal proceedings. Seling v. Young, 531 U.S. 250, 262 (2001). Third, the 4 state court criminal proceedings afford an opportunity for Petitioner, who is the defendant, 5 to raise constitutional claims, such as those raised in this case. Finally, the remedy 6 Petitioner seeks, a writ of habeas corpus, would clearly interfere with the ongoing state 7 criminal proceeding, see Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) ("[T]he essence of 8 habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and . . . 9 the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from custody."), and there are no 10 extraordinary circumstances warranting an exception to the Younger doctrine. 11 Thus, Younger abstention applies, and the Petition should be dismissed without 12 prejudice. 13 B. The Petition Is Unexhausted and Premature 14 Moreover, Petitioner is seeking federal court review of a state criminal proceeding 15 before the California Court of Appeal has reviewed his conviction and sentence, and before 16 he has exhausted his state court remedies. Exhaustion of state court remedies is required 17 before a federal court can grant habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b), (c); see also Rose v. 18 Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518-19 (1982). Thus, a petitioner must have appealed his conviction 19 to the California Supreme Court and/or sought post-conviction habeas corpus relief from 20 the California Supreme Court before his claim is ripe for federal habeas review. 21 Both comity and the interest of judicial economy are served by affording the state 22 courts “the first opportunity to examine the lawfulness of the state prisoner's confinement. If 23 the prisoner's claim is meritorious, and the state remedy is prompt and complete, there is 24 no need to bring post-conviction proceedings in federal courts." Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 25 F.2d 632, 633 (9th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Where a 26 petitioner seeks pre-conviction habeas relief, this exhaustion prerequisite serves two 27 purposes: (1) to avoid isolating state courts from federal constitutional issues by assuring 28 1| federal interference with state adjudication, especially state criminal trials." Carden, 626 2|| F.2d at 83. Thus, habeas relief is generally not available to a petitioner whose underlying 3] criminal case has not been completed. "[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a 4| defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts." Id. at 83-4. As discussed above, no such unusual circumstances are present 7| here. 8 Accordingly, the Petition also should be dismissed without prejudice because it is unexhausted and premature. 10 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 11 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must 12] issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 13 applicant.” 14 The Court has found that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial 16 | showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the issuance of a 17|| certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 18 ORDER 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is dismissed without prejudice; and (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. 21 IT 1S SO ORDERED. 22 Cd LL □ 23|| DATED: January 15, 2021 Thy, LALL

PERCY ANDERSON

24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28 gE