Warden

Robert Michael Vanleeuwen v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaOctober 4, 20215:21-cv-01593California4,070 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I.

INTRODUCTION

On September 17, 2021, Petitioner Robert Michael Vanleeuwen (“Petitioner”), a pre-trial detainee at Cois M. Byrd Detention Center, constructively filed1 a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Section 2254”). ECF Docket Nos. (“Dkts.”) 1, 1-2. Petitioner appears to challenge his pretrial confinement due to criminal charges pending in Riverside County Superior Court and set forth two grounds for habeas relief: (1) “Petitioner was engaged in conduct protected by the First Amendment rights to Petition and Free Speech” and (2) “[I]t [is] a violation of due process when a prosecutor pursues charges in retaliation for the exercise of constitutional and statutory rights.” Id. at 1, 23. As discussed below, the Court orders Petitioner to show cause why the Petition should not be dismissed because abstention is required under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971) (“Younger”).

/// /// /// ///

Under the “mailbox rule,” when a pro se prisoner gives prison authorities a pleading to mail to court, the court deems the pleading constructively “filed” on the date it is signed. Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768, 770…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.