1

2

3

4

5

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 JOHN WESLEY WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01228-AWI-SAB-HC

10 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

11 v. DISMISS

12 MARCUS POLLARD, et al., ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

MOTIONS TO STRIKE

13 Respondents. (ECF Nos. 17, 28, 31) 14 15 Petitioner John Wesley Williams is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 16 corpus. 17 I. 18 BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner is currently being tried in the Kings County Superior Court on a charge of 20 battery on a non-confined person by a prisoner. (ECF No. 13 at 21; LD2 1). On August 13, 2021, 21 Petitioner filed a federal habeas petition wherein he appeared to challenge the State Bar of 22 California’s decision declining to take disciplinary action against prosecutors involved in 23 charging Petitioner. (ECF No. 1). On August 31, 2021, the Court ordered Petitioner to show 24 cause why the petition should not be dismissed based on Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), 25 failure to exhaust state judicial remedies, and failure to state a cognizable federal habeas corpus 26 claim. (ECF No. 10). On September 13, 2021, Petitioner filed his response. (ECF No. 11). On

27 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 2 “LD” refers to the documents lodged by Respondent on December 14, 2021, and February 10, 2022. (ECF Nos. 19, 1 September 29, 2021, the Court discharged the order to show cause and granted Petitioner leave 2 to file a first amended petition that names the proper respondents and directly challenges 3 Petitioner’s ongoing prosecution. (ECF No. 12). 4 On October 14, 2021, Petitioner filed a first amended petition (“FAP”). (ECF No. 13). 5 Petitioner asserts that his “criminal prosecution by the Kings County District Attorney Office is 6 part of an ongoing practice of systemic racism where meritorious evidence favorable to the 7 accused is intentionally lost, destroyed, and suppressed as prosecuting strategy to secure 8 convictions against minority prisoners.” (ECF No. 13 at 3). Respondent moves to dismiss the 9 petition based on Younger. (ECF No. 17). Petitioner filed an opposition and amended opposition. 10 (ECF Nos. 22, 25). Respondent filed a reply. (ECF No. 26). Petitioner also filed two motions to 11 strike Respondent’s erroneous misinterpretation of facts. (ECF Nos. 28, 31). 12 II. 13 DISCUSSION 14 A. Younger Abstention 15 In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that when there is a 16 pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts must refrain from enjoining the state 17 prosecution absent extraordinary circumstances. 401 U.S. at 45. See also Kowalski v. Tesmer, 18 543 U.S. 125, 133 (2004) (“The doctrine of Younger v. Harris . . . reinforces our federal scheme 19 by preventing a state criminal defendant from asserting ancillary challenges to ongoing state 20 criminal procedures in federal court.”). “Younger abstention is a jurisprudential doctrine rooted 21 in overlapping principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of 22 Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 2008). 23 “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) 24 the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the 25 state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or 26 has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 27 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). “But even where the Younger factors are satisfied, ‘federal 1 circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate,’” such as “where the danger of 2 irreparable loss is both great and immediate.” Bean v. Matteucci, 986 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 3 2021) (some internal quotation marks omitted) (first quoting Arevalo, 882 F.3d at 765–66; then 4 quoting World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079, 1082 (9th 5 Cir. 1987)). 6 Here, the parties do not dispute that the Younger factors are satisfied. However, 7 Petitioner asserts that dismissal is not warranted because he has been subjected to the Kings 8 County District Attorney’s Office’s ongoing practice of intentionally losing, destroying, and 9 suppressing meritorious evidence favorable to the accused to secure convictions against minority 10 prisoners such as Petitioner. (ECF No. 22 at 4; ECF No. 25 at 4–5). Petitioner contends that his 11 claim is supported by a complaint filed by a deputy district attorney against the Kings County 12 District Attorney for misconduct. (ECF No. 22 at 4–5). Respondent argues that Petitioner has not 13 established that extraordinary circumstances warrant federal intervention because Petitioner has 14 not shown that evidence was withheld from the defense, Petitioner is being prosecuted for 15 discriminatory purposes or intent, or that the complaint against the Kings County District 16 Attorney alleged racist practices. (ECF No. 26 at 2–4). 17 In the opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner relies on this Court’s discharge of 18 the order to show cause to argue that dismissal is not warranted. The Court notes, however, that 19 its discharge of the order to show cause merely found “that Petitioner’s response sufficiently 20 addresses the Court’s concerns regarding abstention and exhaustion such that summary dismissal 21 is not warranted on these grounds.” (ECF No. 12 at 2 (emphasis added)). This does not preclude 22 the Court from finding abstention is appropriate now that the parties have had the opportunity to 23 fully brief the issue and augment the record before this Court. 24 In his declaration in support of the amended opposition to the motion to dismiss, 25 Petitioner states that the prosecution intentionally failed to collect and preserve video footage 26 from the Kings County courthouse where the incident, which led to Petitioner’s criminal charge, 27 took place. (ECF No. 25 at 12–15). Even if Petitioner does not have access to this video 1 purposes of harassment or bad faith such that an exception to Younger is warranted. Petitioner 2 argues that the complaint filed by a deputy district attorney against the Kings County District 3 Attorney for misconduct supports his contention that his prosecution is a result of the Kings 4 County District Attorney’s Office’s racist practices. However, the complaint in Waggle v. 5 County of Kings, No. 21C-0282 (Kings Cnty. Super. Ct. filed Sept. 8, 2021), contains allegations 6 of sexual harassment and retaliation for rebuffing the District Attorney’s sexual advances. There 7 are allegations that the District Attorney abused his prosecutorial discretion by interfering in 8 criminal prosecutions where he has a personal relationship with the victims or defendants, but 9 there are no allegations regarding misconduct in order to secure convictions against minority 10 defendants. (LD 4). Petitioner has not demonstrated that his criminal prosecution or the alleged 11 mishandling of the video evidence was based on Petitioner’s race or that “similarly situated 12 individuals of a different race were not prosecuted.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 13 465 (1996). 14 To the extent Petitioner contends that his psychological trauma stemming from “being 15 criminally prosecuted for a bogus crime” constitutes irreparable injury, the Court finds that 16 Petitioner has not demonstrated an extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention 17 inappropriate. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 (“[T]he cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to 18 defend against a . . . criminal prosecution, could not by themselves be considered ‘irreparable’ in 19 the special legal sense . . . .”); Bean, 986 F.3d at 1133–36 (the Ninth Circuit has applied the 20 irreparable harm exception to pre-conviction habeas petitions involving a colorable claim that a 21 state prosecution would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, a due process challenge to pretrial 22 detention in the context of a state civil sexually violent predator proceeding, and a due process 23 challenge to the forcible administration of antipsychotic medications). 24 Based on the foregoing, the Court should abstain from interfering with the state judicial 25 process pursuant to Younger, and dismissal is warranted on this ground. 26 B. Motions to Strike 27 In the reply, Respondent argues that prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding whom 1 Disciplinary Officer found Petitioner not guilty during institutional proceedings, that finding was 2 not based on the facts of the incident itself but rather because institutional time constraints had 3 not been met, and there is other evidence—correctional officer statements and reports of the 4 victim’s injuries—that support the prosecutor’s election to pursue charges against Petitioner. 5 (ECF No. 26 at 3). 6 After the reply was filed, Petitioner filed two motions to strike. (ECF Nos. 28, 31). 7 Petitioner contends that Respondent’s statements in the reply are false. Petitioner asserts that the 8 rules violation report (“RVR”) resulted in a not guilty finding based on Petitioner’s account of 9 events and the officers’ failure to cooperate during the investigative process that resulted in 10 insufficient evidence to support the charge. (ECF No. 28 at 2). Petitioner asserts that although the 11 RVR referenced the violation of time constraints, said violation was not the basis of the not 12 guilty finding. (Id. at 3). 13 Attached to the FAP is a copy of the disciplinary hearing results. (ECF No. 13 at 19–28). 14 The hearing was held on October 5, 2019, and hearing official Lieutenant S. Amador found 15 Petitioner “Not Guilty based on a preponderance of evidence.” (Id. at 19, 24, 26–27). The 16 comments stated: “Given the inmates [sic] account of events and the lack of response from COR 17 officers via the Investigative Employee process, their [sic] is insufficient evidence to support the 18 findings.” (Id. at 24). On October 15, 2019, Chief Disciplinary Officer A. Vasquez affirmed the 19 not guilty finding. (Id. at 27–28). However, his comments stated: 20 On October 5, 2019, during Facility Lieutenant review of RVR log 6886118, Inmate Williams, V34099, Battery on a Peace Officer, it 21 was determined time constraints had not be [sic] met resulting in a due process violation. The RVR initial copies were not served 22 within 15 days. The RVR incident occurred on August 5, 2019 and the inmate was served his initial copy on August 22, 2019, 17 days 23 after the incident date. The hearing was held on October 5, 2019. 24 (ECF No. 13 at 27). 25 Respondent stated that the Chief Disciplinary Officer found Petitioner not guilty based on 26 institutional time constraints not being met. (ECF No. 26 at 3). The disciplinary hearing results 27 reflect that although hearing official Lieutenant S. Amador may have found Petitioner not guilty 1 | Officer A. Vasquez affirmed the not guilty finding based on the violation of institutional time 2 | constraints. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motions to strike are denied. 3 Il. 4 RECOMMENDATION & ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Respondent’s motion 6 | to dismiss (ECF No. 17) be GRANTED and the petition for writ of habeas corpus be 7 | DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). 8 Further, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Petitioner’s motions to strike (ECF Nos. 28, 9 | 31) are DENIED. 10 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the assigned United States District 11 | Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 12 | Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 13 | THIRTY (30) days after service of the Findings and Recommendation, any party may file 14 | written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 15 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the 16 | objections shall be served and filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. The 17 | assigned United States District Court Judge will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling 18 | pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within 19 | the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Wilkerson 20 | Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th 21 | Cir. 1991)). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 24 | Dated: _April 19, 2022 _ Of 05 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28