1 2

3

4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 10 ANTONIO QUARTERMAN, Case No. 5:21-cv-1549-AB-MAR 11 Petitioner,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

12 v. DISMISSING THE ACTION 13 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 14 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION On September 3, 2021, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, constructively filed1 20 a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) by a Person in State Custody 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1. For the reasons set forth 22 below, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26

27 1 Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se inmate gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to 1 II. 2 BACKGROUND 3 On June 24, 2020, Petitioner was arraigned on two (2) counts of assault by 4 means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Cal. Pen. Code § 245(a)(4)) with 5 an enhancement for inflicting great bodily injury during the commission of a felony 6 (Cal. Pen. Code §§ 12022.7(a)). “Hearings,” FSB20001936, The People of the State of 7 California vs. Antonio Alexander Quarterman, Superior Court of California, County 8 of San Bernardino, available at https://cap.sb-court.org/ (last visited September 14, 9 2021). The charges concern events that allegedly took place on June 11, 2020. Id. 10 (under “Charges, Dispositions, and Pleas”). Petitioner’s criminal proceedings were 11 suspended after the trial court declared a doubt as to Petitioner’s competency. Id. 12 (under “Case Information” and “Events and Hearings”). Petitioner remains detained 13 at West Valley Detention Center in Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dkt. 1 at 2. 14 On February 12, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed a habeas petition with this 15 Court (“First Petition”). Quarterman v. California, No. 5:21-CV-338-AB (MAR), 16 2021 WL 3930314, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 27, 2021), report and recommendation 17 adopted, No. 5:21-CV-338-AB (MAR), 2021 WL 3930318 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2021). 18 The First Petition contained a variety of constitutional challenges to Plaintiff’s arrest 19 and criminal proceedings. Id. On September 2, 2021, the Court dismissed the 20 petition for failure to exhaust state remedies and pursuant to the abstention doctrine. 21 Id. *2–7. 22 On the same day, September 2, 2021, Petitioner constructively filed the instant 23 Petition. Dkt. 1. Though not entirely clear, the Petition appears to make many of the 24 same arguments from the First Petition, as well as the additional argument that the 25 superior court lacks jurisdiction to try Petitioner because the statute of limitations for 26 his charges has expired. Id. at 3–5. Petitioner’s statute of limitations claim is not 27 cognizable on federal habeas review. Furthermore, to the extent Petitioner brings any 1 cognizable claims, the claims appear unexhausted and subject to dismissal pursuant to 2 the abstention doctrine. Therefore, the action must be DISMISSED. 3 III. 4 STANDARD OF REVIEW 5 The Court may dismiss a habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the 6 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the 7 district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Rule 1(b), Rules 8 Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules 9 to a habeas corpus petition not [under section 2254]”). 10 IV. 11 DISCUSSION 12 A. PETITIONER DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE HABEAS 13 CLAIM 14 1. Applicable law 15 To establish that federal habeas relief is warranted, Petitioner must show that 16 there was a violation of the United States Constitution, federal laws, or treaties of the 17 United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). 18 2. Analysis 19 Petitioner appears to argue that the superior court is without jurisdiction to try 20 him because the statute of limitations has expired on the crimes he has been charged 21 with. Id. at 3–5. Petitioner only cites California statutes and case law. Id. 22 Accordingly, Petitioner’s claim appears to be based entirely on state law and therefore 23 is not cognizable on federal habeas review. 24 B. PETITIONER’S CLAIMS APPEAR UNEXHAUSTED 25 1. Applicable law 26 Although there is no statutory exhaustion requirement for section 2241 actions, 27 federal courts have imposed a prudential exhaustion requirement. See Ward v. 1 petitioner has “fairly presented” his claims to the state courts in accordance with the 2 state's procedures, including the California Courts of Appeal and, ultimately, the 3 California Supreme Court. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999) (habeas 4 petitioner must give the state courts “one full opportunity” to decide a federal claim 5 by carrying out “one complete round” of the state’s appellate process). “To exhaust a 6 habeas claim properly, a petitioner must present his claim to the state supreme court 7 even if that court’s review is discretionary. Because California's established, normal 8 appellate review procedure is a two-tiered system, [the California state inmate- 9 petitioner] was required to exhaust his habeas claims in a petition for review to the 10 California Supreme Court.” Gatlin v. Madding, 189 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 1999). 11 2. Analysis 12 Petitioner admits he has not presented his claims to the California Supreme 13 Court. Dkt. 1 at 6. Accordingly, Petitioner’s claims appear unexhausted and subject 14 to dismissal. 15 C. THE PETITION APPEARS SUBJECT TO DISMISSAL PURSUANT 16 TO THE DOCTRINE OF ABSTENTION 17 1. Applicable law 18 Principles of comity and federalism require federal courts to abstain from 19 interfering with pending state court proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 20 43–45 (1971). The Ninth Circuit has held abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is 21 “an ongoing state judicial proceeding”; (2) the proceeding “implicate[s] important 22 state interests”; (3) there is “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 23 constitutional challenges”; and (4) the requested relief “seek[s] to enjoin” or has “the 24 practical effect of enjoining” the ongoing state judicial proceeding. Arevalo v. 25 Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. 26 State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014)). 27 “Extraordinary circumstances,” may warrant exception to the “fundamental 1 U.S. at 46, 53–54; Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 900–01 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding 2 “abstention principles ... prohibit a federal court from considering a pre-conviction 3 habeas petition that seeks preemptively to litigate an affirmative constitutional defense 4 unless the petitioner can demonstrate that ‘extraordinary circumstances’ warrant 5 federal intervention.” (citing Carden v. State of Mont., 626 F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 6 1980))). 7 2. Analysis 8 Here, like the claims in the First Petition, Petitioner’s claims appear to interfere 9 with his ongoing state court proceedings. See Quarterman v. California, 2021 WL 10 3930314, at *3. As this Court explained in Petitioner’s First Petition: 11 Here, all four (4) Younger abstention criteria are satisfied. First, Petitioner is awaiting trial on his charges and therefore has an “ongoing state judicial 12 proceeding.” Second, the resolution of state criminal proceedings clearly 13 implicates important state interests. Third, Petitioner has “an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges,” 14 either at the trial or appellate level, and there appears to be nothing to 15 prevent Petitioner from doing so. Fourth, habeas relief from this Court in the form of release would have the “practical effect” of enjoining the state 16 court proceedings by releasing Petitioner prior to the adjudication of his 17 criminal case. 18 Quarterman v. California, 2021 WL 3930314 at *3 (internal footnote and 19 citations omitted). Furthermore, Plaintiff has not alleged in the instant Petition that 20 any extraordinary circumstances warrant federal intervention at this stage. 21 Accordingly, even if the Petition contained cognizable claims, the claims should be 22 dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of abstention. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 V. 2 ORDER | 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Petitioner’s Motion is DENIED 4 | and the Petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. > | Dated: September 21, 2021 (yd | ° HONORABLE ANDRE BIROTTE; □□□ 7 United States District Judge l 3 Presented by: | 9 2 SS '0 MARGOAROCCONT. 11 | United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 26 27 28