1

2

3 JS-6

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOMAS SARINANA, JR., Case No. CV 21-7900-JLS (JEM) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING v.

PETITION AND DENYING CERTIFICATE

14

OF APPEALABILITY

JIM MCDONNELL,

15 Respondent. 16

17

18 On October 1, 2021, Tomas Sarinana, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner 19 proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 20 2241, which is properly construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 28

PRIOR FEDERAL HABEAS PROCEEDINGS

1 Petitioner has filed at least two other federal habeas petitions pertaining to the 2 same underlying state criminal proceedings at issue in this case.1 See Tomas 3 4 Sarinana, Jr. v. Alex Villanueva, CV 20-9629-JLS (JEM) (“Sarinana I”), and Tomas 5 Sarinana, Jr. v. Alex Villanueva, CV 21-3780-JLS (JEM) (“Sarinana II”).2 The Court 6 determined that it was appropriate to abstain from adjudicating both of these petitions, 7 and the actions were dismissed without prejudice. (Sarinana I, ECF 28 at 5, ECF 35 at 8 2; Sarinana II, ECF 7 at 5.) 9 10 STATE COURT PROCEEDINGS 11 On March 25, 2016, a felony complaint was filed by the Los Angeles County 12 District Attorney (“People”) in Los Angeles County Superior Court case number 13 KA112126 charging Petitioner with one count of murder, in violation of Cal. Penal Code 14 § 187(a). (Sarinana I, ECF 28 at 2.) 15 16 On November 29, 2017, Petitioner was arraigned on that complaint. Also on that 17 date, Petitioner waived his right to counsel and began representing himself in pro per. 18 (Id.) 19 20 21 22 1 Petitioner also filed a habeas petition in the matter of Tomas Sarinana v. Jim McDonnell, CV 18-5921-JLS (JEM), which was summarily dismissed on August 3, 23 2018, because it did not pertain to the fact or duration of Petitioner’s confinement but 24 attempted to raise civil rights claims regarding the conditions of his confinement. Those claims did not relate to those raised in his other habeas petitions. 25 2 Error! Main Document Only.Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, the Court 26 takes judicial notice of the records in Petitioner’s prior federal habeas corpus actions in 27 this Court. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as 28 the records of an inferior court in other cases.”) (citations omitted); accord United States v. Howard, 381 F.3d 873, 876 n.1 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 On December 14, 2017, the court appointed an investigator to assist Petitioner. 2 Petitioner then requested the appointment of a “legal runner.” On August 22, 2018, the 3 4 magistrate denied that request because an investigator was already appointed and “the 5 defendant is not entitled to have both an investigator and a legal runner appointed.” On 6 October 19, 2018, the magistrate appointed William Jackson as Petitioner’s investigator. 7 (Id.) 8 The preliminary examination was completed on January 29, 2019, and Petitioner 9 10 was held to answer on the charge alleged in the complaint. (Id.) 11 On February 13, 2019, the People filed a felony information charging Petitioner 12 with the one murder count. (Id.) 13 On April 2, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandate in the California 14 Court of Appeal, challenging the magistrate’s order. (Id.) 15 16 On May 20, 2019, the Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ, finding that the 17 magistrate had discretion to appoint a legal runner in addition to an investigator. The 18 Court of Appeal stated that the local rules for the Superior Court appear to give the 19 court discretion to appoint a legal runner in addition to an investigator to assist a pro per 20 defendant. The Court of Appeal gave the Superior Court the alternative to vacate its 21 22 order denying the appointment of a legal runner and reconsider the matter. (Id.) 23 On May 22, 2019, the Superior Court vacated the order denying the appointment 24 of a legal runner. On June 11, 2019, the Superior Court appointed William Jackson to 25 serve as both investigator and legal runner for Petitioner. (Id. at 3.) 26 27 28 1 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of 2 Appeal raising the legal claims at issue here, which was denied on March 27, 2020. 3 4 (Id.) 5 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the California Supreme 6 Court raising the same legal issues, which was denied on August 12, 2020. (Id.) 7 On April 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the Superior Court, arguing 8 that the People failed to disclose exculpatory evidence prior to the preliminary hearing, 9 10 in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (“Brady”). The petition was denied 11 on August 26, 2020. (Sarinana II, ECF 7 at 2.) 12 On October 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Court of 13 Appeal raising the same Brady issue, which was denied on December 4, 2020. (Id.) 14 On January 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a habeas petition in the California Supreme 15 16 Court raising the Brady issue, which was denied on March 24, 2021. (Id.) 17 Petitioner remains a pre-trial detainee pending the outcome of his criminal 18 proceedings. (Pet. at 2.) 19

PETITIONER’S CLAIMS

20 Petitioner claims that his federal constitutional rights were violated when the trial 21 22 court suspended/revoked his pro per privileges on August 22, 2018. (Pet. at 11-12.) 23 24 25 26 27 28 1

ANALYSIS

2

I. Duty to Screen

3 4 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 5 Courts mandates the summary dismissal of a Section 2254 petition "[i]f it plainly 6 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 7 relief in the district court." Rule 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. For the reasons set forth 8 below, the Petition should be summarily dismissed. 9 10 II. The Court Should Abstain From Adjudicating the Petition 11 The Younger abstention doctrine forbids federal courts from interceding in 12 ongoing state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances that create a 13 threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971); Kenneally v. 14 Lungren, 967 F.2d 329, 331 (9th Cir. 1992). The Younger abstention doctrine applies 15 16 while a case is on appeal in the state courts. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. 17 Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). “Younger generally directs a 18 federal court to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere 19 with pending state judicial proceedings.” Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 20 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997) (overruled on other grounds by Green v. City of Tucson, 255 21 22 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001)). If Younger abstention applies, the federal court must 23 dismiss the action. World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 24 1079, 1081 (9th Cir. 1987). In the habeas context, Younger abstention promotes both 25 the interests of comity and judicial economy. Courts have “long recognized that in some 26 circumstances considerations of comity and concerns for the orderly administration of 27 28 1 criminal justice require a federal court to forego the exercise of its habeas corpus 2 power.” Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 539 (1976) (citation omitted). 3 4 A federal court “must abstain under Younger if four requirements are met: (1) a 5 state-initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the proceeding implicates important state 6 interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues 7 in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal court action would enjoin the proceeding or 8 have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state proceeding in a 9 10 way that Younger disapproves.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce 11 Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008) 12 (citations omitted); see also Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar 13 Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432-37 (1982). Under the first Younger factor, the pendency of the 14 state proceedings is determined at the time the federal petition is filed. Mission Oaks 15 16 Mobile Home Park v. City of Hollister, 989 F.2d 359, 360-61 (9th Cir. 1993) (overruled 17 on other grounds by Green v. City of Tucson, 255 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001); 18 Beltran v. California, 871 F.2d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1988). State proceedings are ongoing 19 if appellate remedies have not been exhausted. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 20 609 (1975). 21 22 Application of the foregoing factors to the facts of this case compels the 23 conclusion that the Court must abstain from considering the Petition. First, a state- 24 initiated proceeding is ongoing in the Superior Court, i.e., the pending criminal case 25 against Petitioner. It is clear on the face of the Petition that Petitioner remains a pre-trial 26 detainee and that his state criminal proceedings and appeals have not concluded. (See 27 28 Pet. at 2-3.) Second, prosecution of crimes is an important state interest. See Kelly v. 1 Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986); Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545, 585 (1979); Younger, 2 401 U.S. at 43-44. Third, if Petitioner is convicted on the pending criminal charge, he 3 4 has an adequate opportunity to litigate any federal constitutional issues on direct appeal 5 or collateral review. Fourth, if this Court grants the relief sought in the Petition, it would 6 result in the termination of the state criminal case, which is an action that Younger 7 disapproves. The Younger abstention doctrine bars the Court from adjudicating 8 Petitioner’s federal claims at this time. 9 10 Accordingly, the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner is 11 again cautioned that he should not seek federal habeas review in this Court until after 12 the state criminal case has concluded. If he is convicted, he must exhaust all of his 13 federal constitutional claims in the state courts on direct review and/or on habeas review 14 before seeking habeas relief in this Court. 15 16 CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases, the Court “must 18 issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the 19 applicant.” 20 The Court has found that the Petition should be dismissed without prejudice. For 21 22 the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a 23 substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as is required to support the 24 issuance of a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 25

26 27 28

ORDER

3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) the Petition is dismissed without prejudice; 4 (2) a certificate of appealability is denied. 5 IT |S SO ORDERED. 6 mel a ao 7 ||Dated: October 14, 2021 nelle’ ih

JOSEPHINE L. STATON

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28