1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND CHAD WATKINS, No. 1:23-cv-01450-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE

13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO DISMISS PREMATURE PETITION

15 TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERIOR [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION

COURT, DEADLINE]

16 Respondent. 17

18 19 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant habeas petition in this Court on October 10, 21 2023. Upon review of the petition, the Court finds that it should abstain from interfering in 22 ongoing state court proceedings, and the petition should be dismissed. 23 DISCUSSION 24 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 25 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 26 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 27 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 28 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 1 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 2 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 3 2001). 4 B. Background 5 Petitioner states he is in custody in the Tuolumne County Jail awaiting trial. Petitioner 6 presents several complaints concerning ongoing state court proceedings: he contends that his bail 7 was doubled, the judge committed misconduct, the prosecution committed misconduct, and his 8 counsel has been ineffective. Petitioner also raises numerous complaints concerning the 9 conditions of his confinement: he claims that he is being denied adequate medical care, he states 10 that he is being denied legal papers and the ability to file court documents, and he contends that 11 he is being denied reasonable medical/mental accommodations. It does not appear that Petitioner 12 has sought relief for his complaints in the state courts except in the trial court. 13 C. Younger Abstention 14 Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 15 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief except under 16 special circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is 17 required when: (1) state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings 18 involve important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to 19 raise the constitutional issue. Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 20 U.S. 423, 432 (1982); Dubinka v. Judges of the Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994). 21 The rationale of Younger applies throughout the appellate proceedings, requiring that state 22 appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is 23 permitted. Dubinka, 23 F.3d at 223 (even if criminal trials were completed at time of abstention 24 decision, state court proceedings still considered pending). 25 The law of habeas corpus also provides guidance on when a district court should abstain 26 from review of a claim. In order to be granted federal habeas corpus relief, the petition must have 27 exhausted his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). The rule of exhaustion is based on 28 comity to the state court and gives the state court the initial opportunity to correct the state's 1 alleged constitutional deprivations. Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991). The 2 exhaustion requirement can be satisfied by providing the highest state court with a full and fair 3 opportunity to consider each claim before presenting it to the federal court. Picard v. Connor, 404 4 U.S. 270, 276 (1971) 5 In the instant case, state criminal proceedings are ongoing. California has an important 6 interest in passing upon and correcting violations of a defendant’s rights. Roberts v. Dicarlo, 296 7 F.Supp.2d 1182, 1185 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Koerner v. Grigas, 328 F.3d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir. 8 2003). The trial court remains available as an adequate forum for Petitioner to seek relief. In 9 addition, the California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court are adequate forums 10 for Petitioner to seek further relief for his claims. Roberts, 296 F.Supp.2d at 1185. Therefore, the 11 Court recommends abstaining from interfering in state proceedings pursuant to Younger. 12 D. Civil Rights Complaints 13 A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or 14 duration” of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting Preiser 15 v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973)). In contrast, a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 16 1983 is the proper method for a prisoner to challenge the conditions of confinement. McCarthy v. 17 Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 141-42 (1991); Preiser, 411 U.S. at 499. Petitioner’s civil rights claims 18 are not cognizable in a federal habeas action and must be dismissed. Petitioner must seek relief 19 for his complaints by way of a civil rights action. 20 In Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 936 (9th Cir. 2016), the Ninth Circuit held that a 21 district court has the discretion to construe a habeas petition as a civil rights action under § 1983. 22 However, recharacterization is appropriate only if it is “amenable to conversion on its face, 23 meaning that it names the correct defendants and seeks the correct relief,” and only after the 24 petitioner is warned of the consequences of conversion and is provided an opportunity to 25 withdraw or amend the petition. Id. Here, the Court does not find recharacterization to be 26 appropriate. Petitioner does not name the proper defendants and the claims are not amenable to 27 conversion on their face. Accordingly, the Court should not exercise its discretion to 28 recharacterize the action. 1 Therefore, the Court will recommend that the action be dismissed and the Clerk of Court 2 be directed to send Petitioner a blank civil rights complaint. 3 ORDER 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a district 5 judge to this case. 6 RECOMMENDATION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition be DISMISSED, 8 and the Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a blank civil rights form. 9 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 10 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 11 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 12 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 13 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 14 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 15 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 16 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19 Dated: October 11, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28