1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 ISAAC TORRES, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-05546-RGK-JDE ) 12 Petitioner, ) ) ORDER RE: SUMMARY DISMISSAL 13 v. ) ) OF ACTION 14 ALEX VILLANUEVA, ) ) ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 17 I. 18 INTRODUCTION 19 On July 8, 2021, Petitioner Isaac Torres (“Petitioner”), a pretrial 20 detainee proceeding pro se, filed a 187-page Petition for Writ of Habeas 21 Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, that purports to challenge a pending criminal 22 case against him on speedy trial grounds and for failure to timely conduct his 23 preliminary hearing. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). He requests an “order to 24 show cause” and evidentiary hearing, and incorporates his habeas petition filed 25 in the California Supreme Court in which he sought dismissal of the criminal 26 case. Pet. at 7-8, 15-16 (CM/ECF pagination). 27 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same 28 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 1 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 2 Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply 3 the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 4 § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition 5 and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 6 petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” 7 Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). 8 Having conducted a review of the Petition pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, 9 and with Petitioner having been advised of the Petition’s defects and having 10 had an opportunity to be heard, for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds 11 this matter is subject to summary dismissal. 12 II. 13 RELEVANT PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 Petitioner alleges that the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office 15 filed a five-count felony complaint against him on October 12, 2019, and he 16 has been in custody since his arrest on November 15, 2019. Pet. at 10, 39. 17 Since that time, Petitioner’s requests for “a public and speedy trial” have been 18 denied. Id. at 10. On October 30, 2020, the prosecutor dismissed and refiled 19 the charges. Id. at 10, 52-54. Petitioner contends he has made “numerous 20 ‘objections’ to the superior court’s denial of his requests for a speedy trial rights 21 and ‘[i]llegal [p]roceedings.’” Id. at 10, 15. 22 On March 8, 2021, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California 23 Court of Appeal, which was denied on March 11, 2021. Pet. at 6. On April 5, 24 2021, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme Court. Id. at 25 6, 13-21. That petition was denied on May 26, 2021. Id. at 6, 12. 26 Meanwhile, on April 12, 2021, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of 27 mandamus in the California Court of Appeal, which was denied on April 16, 28 2021. Pet. at 6, 10. Petitioner claims he did not receive the denial until April 1 25, 2021, and “promptly” prepared a petition for review. Id. at 10. However, 2 the petition for review was not received by the California Supreme Court until 3 May 13, 2021. Id. at 10-11. On May 20, 2021, the California Supreme Court 4 returned his petition for review “unfiled,” explaining that Petitioner was 5 advised in a letter dated May 13, 2021 that his petition for review was untimely 6 and he would need to submit an application for relief from default, which was 7 not received, depriving the court of jurisdiction. Id. at 11, 182. Petitioner 8 alleges that he sent a declaration to the California Supreme Court on May 29, 9 2021 explaining that he never received the May 13, 2021 letter, but, to date, he 10 has not received a response. Id. at 11. 11 Based on the Court’s review of the Los Angeles County Superior Court’s 12 online docket in Case No. BA491138, Petitioner is presently charged with 13 violations of Cal. Penal Code §§ 140(a), 261(a)(2), 273.5(f)(1), 287(c)(2)(A), 14 and 289(a)(1)(A) and a pretrial conference is scheduled for August 20, 2021. 15 Los Angeles County Superior Court, Criminal Case Summary at 16 www.lacourt.org.1 17 As noted, Petitioner filed the Petition on July 8, 2021. On July 19, 2021, 18 the assigned magistrate judge issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Petition 19 Should Not Be Dismissed, noting, among other defects, the defects set forth 20 below, and providing Petitioner an opportunity to respond. Dkt. 4 (“OSC”). 21 On August 5, 2021, Petitioner filed his Response to the OSC. Dkt. 6 22 (“Response”). 23

24 1 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court takes judicial notice of relevant state records available electronically. See Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 25 2002) (taking judicial notice of opinion and briefs filed in another proceeding); 26 United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992) (courts “may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both 27 within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct 28 relation to matters at issue” (citation omitted)). 1 III. 2 PETITIONER’S CLAIMS 3 1. Petitioner has been denied his rights to a public and speedy trial in 4 violation of the California Constitution and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. 5 Constitution. Pet. at 6, 15. 6 2. Petitioner’s second preliminary examination was set more than 10 7 court days after the arraignment, he remained in custody 10 court days before 8 the preliminary examination, and he has not received any documents under 9 the new criminal case number. Pet. at 7, 16. 3. The trial court erred in denying his habeas petition “alleging denial 10 of motion to dismiss for speedy trial violations” in violation of the Fourteenth 11 Amendment and the California Constitution. Pet. at 7, 17. 12 4. The California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court 13 erroneously denied Petitioner’s habeas petitions seeking dismissal of his 14 criminal case without conducting an evidentiary hearing in violation of “the 15 Due Process Clause under the Eighth Amendment.” Pet. at 8, 15-16, 18. 16 5. The California Supreme Court erroneously rejected his Petition for 17 Review seeking review of the denial of his petition for writ of mandamus 18 seeking dismissal of his criminal case. Pet. at 10, 75. 19

IV.

DISCUSSION

21 A. Younger Abstention Is Warranted 22 As best the Court can discern, Petitioner is seeking the dismissal of his 23 underlying criminal case based on speedy trial grounds and the delay in 24 conducting his preliminary examination. However, this Court must abstain 25 from interfering with Petitioner’s ongoing state prosecution. In accordance 26 with the Younger abstention doctrine, the only potential relief available would 27 be a prompt trial. Here, however, Petitioner’s trial has already commenced, or 28 1 is about to commence, and to the extent Petitioner is seeking such relief, he did 2 not exhaust such a claim in the state supreme court. 3 “Only a limited number of pre-trial challenges have been found 4 cognizable under Section 2241. Generally, pre-trial habeas challenges have 5 been allowed only when a state defendant contends he is being deprived of his 6 right to a speedy trial or the Double Jeopardy Clause will be violated if he is 7 tried.” Fritz v. Cty. of L.A. CA, 2012 WL 5197971, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 8 2012) (citing Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 488-93 (1973)); 9 McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 824 n.1 (9th Cir. 2003) (as amended). 10 However, as the Supreme Court has explained, “federal habeas corpus does 11 not lie, absent ‘special circumstances,’ to adjudicate the merits of an 12 affirmative defense to a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of conviction 13 by a state court.” Braden, 410 U.S. at 489. 14 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from 15 intervening in pending state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary 16 circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger 17 abstention applies to both attempts to preclude and/or stay criminal 18 prosecutions and attempts to obtain more limited or piecemeal intervention in 19 state criminal actions. See, e.g., Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 130 (1975) 20 (explaining that “at least in the absence of ‘extraordinary circumstances’ 21 federal courts must refuse to intervene in state criminal proceedings to suppress 22 the use of evidence claimed to have been obtained through unlawful means”); 23 Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Ct. of Cal. for the Cty. of L.A., 23 F.3d 218, 24 223-26 (9th Cir. 1994) (finding a request to enjoin enforcement of a criminal 25 discovery statute and suppress evidence obtained under that statute could not 26 be entertained). Younger abstention is warranted when: (1) the state court 27 proceedings are ongoing; (2) the proceedings implicate important state 28 interests; (3) the state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise 1 constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has 2 “the practical effect of enjoining” the ongoing state judicial proceedings. 3 Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted). 4 Abstention principles generally require federal courts to abstain from 5 exercising jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises an 6 affirmative defense to a state prosecution unless (1) the state proceedings are 7 being undertaken in bad faith or to harass, where there is no “hope of 8 obtaining a valid conviction,” or (2) “in other extraordinary circumstances 9 where irreparable injury can be shown.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 10 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted); see also Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. 11 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435-37 (1982); Page v. King, 932 F.3d 12 898, 902 (9th Cir. 2019). Irreparable injury alone, however, is insufficient to 13 warrant federal intervention unless the irreparable injury is both great and 14 immediate. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. 15 In this case, to the extent Petitioner seeks dismissal of the state criminal 16 charges against him, principles of comity and federalism preclude this Court 17 from granting Petitioner habeas relief. As noted, Petitioner’s state criminal 18 proceedings are ongoing. Petitioner is in pretrial custody and is awaiting trial 19 on the criminal charges for which he is detained. Second, the state’s task of 20 enforcing its laws against socially harmful conduct is “important and 21 necessary,” Younger, 401 U.S. at 51-52, and as such, the state proceedings 22 implicate important state interests. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 23 (1986) (“This Court has recognized that the States’ interest in administering 24 their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most 25 powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering 26 equitable types of relief.”). Third, Petitioner has an adequate opportunity to 27 raise his federal habeas claims in his pending state proceedings. The fourth 28 factor also is satisfied, as granting Petitioner the relief sought would have “‘the 1 practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” See 2 Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765 (citation omitted). 3 Finally, there is nothing to indicate the circumstances of Petitioner’s case 4 fall within any recognized exception to the Younger doctrine. The delay in 5 bringing Petitioner’s case to trial does not constitute an “extraordinary 6 circumstance” under Younger. See Page, 932 F.3d at 902. Courts have in “rare 7 cases” declined to abstain where the delay was “extreme” and there was “no 8 end in sight” to the state court proceedings. Even then, however, Younger 9 abstention is appropriate where there is “no indication that the state court has 10 been ineffective.” Id. (citation omitted). The delay in Petitioner’s case does not 11 qualify as one of those “rare cases” in which the delay has been extreme and 12 there is no end in sight. See Koch v. Price, 2020 WL 5095487, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 13 Aug. 28, 2020) (no exceptional circumstances existed even where the case had 14 been pending for ten years), findings and recommendation adopted by 2020 15 WL 5942358 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2020). The delay in Petitioner’s case is 16 attributable to a once-in-a-century global pandemic that has resulted in the 17 death of millions of people, and not attributable to the ineffectiveness of the 18 state court. See Pet. at 46, 49, 67. 19 Further, to the extent Petitioner asserts his speedy trial argument creates 20 an “extraordinary circumstance,” the Ninth Circuit has held that a claimed 21 violation of the Speedy Trial Clause in and of itself is not an independent 22 “extraordinary circumstance” necessitating pre-trial habeas consideration. 23 Brown, 676 F.3d at 901. “[A]bsent specifically defined extraordinary 24 circumstances, principles of federalism and comity prohibit a federal district 25 court from entertaining a pre-conviction habeas petition that raises a Speedy 26 Trial claim as an affirmative defense to state prosecution.” Id. at 900. 27 In Braden, the petitioner sought habeas relief, claiming a denial of his 28 constitutional right to a speedy trial and requesting an order directing the 1 respondent to afford him an immediate trial on his then three-year old 2 Kentucky indictment. 410 U.S. at 485. The Supreme Court held that the 3 petitioner was entitled to raise his speedy trial claim at that time because: (1) 4 he was in custody within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241; (2) he exhausted all 5 available state remedies; and (3) he did not seek to litigate a defense to a 6 criminal charge, but instead, sought a prompt trial. Id. at 488-90. Under these 7 limited circumstances, no “legitimate interest of federalism” was jeopardized 8 by allowing the petitioner to seek Section 2241 relief. Id. at 492. The Supreme 9 Court emphasized, however, that nothing in its decision “would permit the 10 derailment of a pending state proceeding by an attempt to litigate 11 constitutional defenses prematurely in federal court.” Id. at 493. 12 Here, unlike in Braden, it does not appear Petitioner is merely seeking a 13 prompt trial, particularly given that it appears trial will commence shortly, and 14 he failed to exhaust such a claim in the state supreme court. Although there is 15 no statutory exhaustion requirement for Section 2241 actions, federal courts 16 have imposed a prudential exhaustion requirement. See Ward v. Chavez, 678 17 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2012). “The rule of exhaustion in federal habeas 18 corpus actions is rooted in considerations of federal-state comity” and is “not 19 limited to challenges to the validity of state court convictions.” Preiser v. 20 Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491 (1973). Here, based on the documents attached 21 to the Petition, it appears Petitioner has not sought a prompt trial in the 22 California Supreme Court. Rather, he has consistently and repeatedly raised a 23 speedy trial claim as an affirmative defense to the state prosecution, seeking 24 dismissal of the criminal charges against him. As such, to the extent Petitioner 25 requests a prompt trial in this action, considerations of comity and federalism 26 preclude Petitioner from proceeding to federal court without first exhausting 27 this claim in state court. See Fritz, 2012 WL 5197971, at *4 (“Federalism and 28 comity concerns preclude Petitioner’s attempt to proceed in federal court 1 without first affording the state courts the opportunity to consider his claims 2 and provide any relief that is appropriate.”). Thus, here, a claim of a speedy 3 trial violation alone does not constitute an extraordinary circumstance. The 4 alleged issues that Petitioner claims he is enduring are matters that can and 5 should be addressed in the first instance by the trial court, and then the state 6 appellate courts, before he seeks a federal writ of habeas corpus. 7 In his Response to the OSC, Petitioner cites to United States v. Olson, 8 995 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2021), a case applying the federal Speedy Trial Act, 18 9 U.S.C. § 3161. However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Olson, which reversed 10 a dismissal of an indictment based on an alleged violation of the federal 11 Speedy Trial Act, is of no assistance to Petitioner, who is not facing federal 12 charges and thus, is not subject to the federal Speedy Trial Act. Further, the 13 court in Olson did not address the Younger abstention doctrine or consider the 14 scope of any exceptions thereto. 15 Thus, Younger abstention is appropriate to the extent the Petition 16 challenges Petitioner’s underlying state criminal proceedings. When Younger 17 applies, and the petitioner seeks injunctive relief, as the Petition does here by 18 requesting the dismissal of the pending criminal charges, the Court has no 19 discretion to grant injunctive relief. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. 20 v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 816 n.22 (1976); Garrison v. California, 2018 21 WL 2106488, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2018). To the extent Petitioner 22 otherwise seeks a prompt trial, that claim is subject to dismissal for failure to 23 exhaust in state court. 24 B. Several of Petitioner’s Claims are Non-Cognizable 25 Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is relying on state law, such claims 26 are subject to dismissal as non-cognizable. “In conducting habeas review, a 27 federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the 28 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Estelle v. McGuire, 502 1 62, 68 (1991); Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 221 (1982) (“A federally 2 ||issued writ of habeas corpus, of course, reaches only convictions obtained in 3 || violation of some provision of the United States Constitution.”). Federal 4 || habeas relief is not available for errors of state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); 5 || McGuire, 502 U.S. at 67-68. 6 Here, several of Petitioner’s claims rely on violations of the California 7 Constitution and state law. Petitioner alleges violations of the California 8 || Constitution in Grounds One and Three, and he relies entirely on a violation 9 || of state law in support of Ground Two. See Pet. at 6-7, 16. Further, Petitioner 10 || cites no authority in support of Ground Five, let alone identify a federal 11 || constitutional violation. Id. at 10-11. In his Response to the OSC, Petitioner 12 states “No warrant exist[s] to my knowledge for my Arrest which violates” the 13 || Fourth Amendment, but the Petition makes no unlawful arrest claim. The 14 || Petition’s state law claims are not cognizable on federal habeas review and 15 ||subject to summary dismissal. 16 V. 17 ORDER 18 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action be summarily 19 || dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 20 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. 21 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 22 93 || Dated: August 23, 2021 j % I Rarer a 24 R GARY KLAUSNER 25 United States District Judge %6 Presented by:

LE MO

28 John D. Early United States Magistrate Judge 10