1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 MICHAEL R. SPENGLER, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-05854-DOC (SP) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) 13 v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ) SUMMARILY DISMISSING 14 L.A.D.A. OFFICE, et al. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF ) HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondents. ) ) 16 ) ) 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On July 19, 2021, petitioner Michael R. Spengler, an inmate at the Twin 21 Towers Correctional Facility (“TTCF”), filed what purports to be a Petition for 22 Writ of Habeas Corpus (“the Petition”).1 Petitioner is a pretrial detainee, and 23 argues respondents are violating his First Amendment and Sixth Amendment 24 rights as well as his due process rights on the grounds that he is being denied 25 26 1 Petitioner filed the instant Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241; however, 27 because petitioner is an inmate detained in state custody, the court construes the 28 Petition as filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 1 meaningful access to the court and his right to counsel is being violated in his 2 upcoming state trial. 3 With the Petition, petitioner also filed what appeared to be a motion for a 4 Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”). On July 28, 2021, the Court denied 5 petitioner’s motion to the extent that it can be construed as a request for a TRO, 6 finding that the issues petitioner raised could not be addressed through a TRO, and 7 that even if the Court could remedy such issues, petitioner did not establish he is 8 likely to succeed on the merits of his claims. The Court now considers the 9 Petition. 10 For the reasons that follow, the Petition will be summarily dismissed. Most 11 fundamentally, petitioner does not seek relief that is cognizable in a habeas 12 petition, since petitioner is not challenging the legality of his confinement. 13 Moreover, under the Younger Abstention Doctrine, this Court may not intervene in 14 petitioner’s pending state criminal case, as petitioner asks the Court to do. See 15 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). 16 II. 17 BACKGROUND 18 This is not petitioner’s first attempt to convince this Court to intervene in 19 his state criminal proceedings. He has done so in numerous other cases, including 20 by way of civil rights complaints (case numbers 2:17-cv-00450-DOC (SP), 2:17- 21 02078-DOC (SP), 2:17-cv-03078-DOC (SP), 2:17-cv-04100-DOC (SP), 2:17-cv- 22 06552-DOC (SP), 2:18-cv-00097-RGK (JPR), and 2:21-cv-06051-DOC (SP)), and 23 in other habeas petitions (case numbers 2:17-cv-00884-DOC (SP) and 2:19-cv- 24 08259-DOC (SP)). The Court has denied all such efforts, repeatedly finding and 25 advising petitioner that, inter alia, the Court must abstain from interfering with the 26 state criminal case under the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 27 In the instant Petition, petitioner again seeks this Court’s assistance with his 28 2 1 pending state criminal case. He generally argues that his “pretrial detention is 2 unlawful because he is being held illegally in violation of the Constitution, laws, 3 or treaties of the United States in his criminal case BA451330-01.” Petition at 5. 4 Petitioner does not specify how his pretrial detention violates the Constitution, and 5 his detention does not in fact appear to be the subject of his Petition. 6 Instead, he challenges the conduct of the prosecutor and trial court in his 7 pending state criminal case on which he is awaiting trial, currently scheduled for 8 August 23, 2021. Specifically, petitioner alleges that respondents are not 9 “provid[ing] him with 1st Amendment meaningful court access” and that they are 10 violating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by requiring him to sit at another 11 table six feet away from his attorneys despite his complete hearing loss in one ear 12 and limited hearing in his other ear. Id. at 5-8. Petitioner also contends 13 “respondents will not provide to him his 20 [peremptory] jury challenges violating 14 his due process and right to a fair and impartial jury,” because the courtroom only 15 holds 25 jurors at a time rather than the 100 jurors that petitioner believes he is 16 entitled to. Id. at 10-11. Petitioner further asserts his due process rights are being 17 violated, because “respondents will not call a full complete jury panel or one that 18 represents a cross section of the community,” and he is being denied the ability to 19 call certain witnesses. Id. at 11-15. 20 It is unclear to this Court exactly what relief petitioner requests with the 21 instant Petition, but it appears he is asking the Court to intervene in his pending 22 state criminal case by ordering the Superior Court to modify the way it will 23 conduct his trial and to allow certain witnesses to appear remotely at the trial. 24 III. 25 DISCUSSION 26 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases authorizes the Court to 27 summarily dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and 28 3 1 any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 2 court.” Rule 4 also authorizes dismissals on procedural grounds. See 28 U.S.C. 3 foll. § 2254, Rule 4 Advisory Committee Note (1976); White v. Lewis, 874 F.2d 4 599, 602 (9th Cir. 1989). Here, the Petition must be dismissed because, as 5 discussed below, it does not raise a cognizable habeas corpus claim over which 6 this Court has jurisdiction, and because it asks this Court to intervene in a pending 7 state criminal case in contravention of the Younger Abstention Doctrine. 8 A. The Petition Does Not Raise a Cognizable Claim for Habeas Relief 9 Section 2254 permits a federal court to entertain a habeas petition by a 10 prisoner in state custody “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of 11 the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 12 “[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in state custody upon the 13 legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure 14 release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484, 93 S. Ct. 15 1827, 36 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1973); Burnett v. Lampert, 432 F. 3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 16 2005). Here, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the instant Petition because 17 petitioner is not claiming he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or other 18 federal law. See Baily v. Hill, 599 F.3d 976, 979-82 (9th Cir. 2010) (§ 2254’s 19 jurisdictional requirement includes that the habeas challenge be to the lawfulness 20 of petitioner’s custody). Instead, he is challenging aspects of his upcoming trial 21 on his pending state criminal case, which primarily appear to concern pandemic 22 related restrictions by the trial court. This is not a cognizable habeas corpus claim 23 over which this Court has jurisdiction. 24 A federal court has the discretion to construe a mislabeled habeas corpus 25 petition as a civil rights action and permit the action to proceed, such as when the 26 petition seeks relief from the conditions of confinement. See Wilwording v. 27 Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S. Ct. 407, 30 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1971) (per curiam) 28 4 1 (holding that where a habeas corpus petition presents § 1983 claims challenging 2 conditions of confinement, the petition should be construed as a civil rights 3 action), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Woodford v. Ngo, 4 548 U.S. 81, 84, 126 S. Ct. 2378, 165 L. Ed. 2d 368 (2006). But petitioner is not 5 challenging the conditions of his confinement in the instant Petition. Additionally, 6 petitioner previously sought to raise similar claims by filing civil rights 7 complaints, and those complaints were dismissed as prohibited by the Younger 8 Abstention Doctrine. As discussed below, Younger also precludes this Court from 9 acting in the instant case. Consequently, construing the instant habeas Petition as 10 a civil rights complaint would be futile. 11 B. This Court Must Abstain Under Younger 12 The Younger Abstention Doctrine prohibits federal courts from staying or 13 enjoining pending state criminal court proceedings or “considering a 14 pre-conviction habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative 15 constitutional defense unless the petitioner can demonstrate that extraordinary 16 circumstances warrant federal intervention.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 901 17 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Younger v. Harris, 401 18 U.S. 37. Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) the state court proceedings 19 are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the 20 state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional 21 claims. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 22 432, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116 (1982); Baffert v. Cal. Horse Racing Bd., 23 332 F.3d 613, 617 (9th Cir. 2003). 24 The first two Middlesex elements for the Younger Abstention Doctrine to be 25 invoked are plainly present here. There is an ongoing state proceeding, the 26 criminal case against petitioner. And the criminal proceeding implicates important 27 state interests because it involves an alleged violation of state criminal law that is 28 5 1 being adjudicated in state court. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 13, 2 107 S. Ct. 1519, 95 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1987) (enforcement of state court judgments and 3 orders implicates important state interests); see also People of State of Cal. v. 4 Mesa, 813 F.2d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 1987) (“A [state’s] ability to protect its citizens 5 from violence and other breaches of the peace through enforcement of criminal 6 laws is the centermost pillar of sovereignty.”). 7 Petitioner’s arguments and assertions in the Petition implicitly challenge the 8 third Middlesex element, in that he suggests that he faces irreparable injury 9 because his federal civil rights are being violated in the prosecution of him. But 10 petitioner fails to explain why he cannot raise the claims he seeks to raise here in 11 his criminal case. If petitioner is in fact being denied meaningful access to the 12 court, his right to counsel, or the ability to fully and fairly present his defense, he 13 may raise those First Amendment and Sixth Amendment claims and due process 14 challenges before and during his state criminal trial, and in any appeal he might 15 bring if he is convicted. It is thus apparent that the state court criminal 16 proceedings have provided and will provide an adequate opportunity for petitioner 17 to litigate his constitutional claims. “The ‘adequate opportunity’ prong of 18 Younger . . . requires only the absence of ‘procedural bars’ to raising a federal 19 claim in the state proceedings.” Commc’ns Telesystems Int’l v. Cal. Pub. Util. 20 Comm’n, 196 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir. 1999). Petitioner here faces no such 21 procedural bars. 22 For this Court to grant the injunctive relief petitioner requests, or even to 23 allow this case to proceed, would amount to interfering with the trial of 24 petitioner’s state criminal case. There are no “extraordinary circumstances” 25 present here that would warrant federal intervention. The Ninth Circuit found 26 under Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S. Ct. 674, 27 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1971), the 27 Supreme Court has “limited the category of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ to 28 6 1 encompass only ‘cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state 2 officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction,’ or where 3 ‘irreparable injury can be shown.’” Brown, 676 F.3d at 901 (citing Carden v. 4 State of Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84 (9th Cir. 1980)); see Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 5 327, 338, 97 S. Ct. 1211, 51 L. Ed. 2d 376 (1977). Petitioner’s allegations do not 6 indicate he is being prosecuted without reasonable hope of conviction. Indeed, as 7 discussed in other cases petitioner has brought, a jury hung on a charge against 8 him, and he will be retried on that and another charge. Nor, as discussed above, 9 does petitioner allege he faces irreparable injury “other than that incidental to 10 every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith.” Younger, 401 U.S. 11 47 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 12 U.S. 157, 164, 63 S. Ct. 877, 87 L. Ed. 1324 (1943)). Petitioner here simply 13 disagrees with certain restrictions that he suspects will be implemented in his 14 upcoming state trial, but that is a matter he can raise in his state case. Petitioner’s 15 arguments do not demonstrate extraordinary circumstances that warrant this 16 Court’s intervention in the state court proceedings. 17 In sum, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition because it does not 18 raise a cognizable claim for habeas relief. But even if the Petition were 19 cognizable, this Court would need to abstain under Younger. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 1 IV. 2 CONCLUSION 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered summarily 4 || dismissing the Petition and this action with prejudice. 5 DATED: August 4 2021 Abou - LO Cut 8 HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Presented by:

12 13 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28