1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEIGHTON B. DOREY, IV, Case No.: 20-CV-1772 TWR (MSB)

12 Petitioner,

ORDER (1) DISMISSING CASE

13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2)

DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED

14 WILLIAM GORE, County Sheriff,

IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT

15 Respondent. (ECF No. 2) 16

17 Petitioner, a person detained at the San Diego County San Diego Central Jail 18 awaiting retrial following a hung jury, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 20 Nos. 1–2.) He states that he is currently proceeding pro se in state court preparing for 21 retrial, and that his rights to due process, a fair and speedy trial, and meaningful access to 22 the courts are being denied because the San Diego Central Jail “does not afford the 23 petitioner ample and appropriate law library access as required by the extraordinarily 24 complex and challenging demands of a capital murder defense, and the jail thus bars the 25 petitioner from meaningful access to the Court, and from participating in a fair and speedy 26 trial.” (ECF No. 1 at 6, 13–14.) He seeks an order from this Court requiring the Central 27 Jail to allow him 20-30 hours per week of law library time. (Id. at 14.) 28 / / / 1 ABSTENTION 2 The Petition must be dismissed because it is clear this Court is barred from 3 consideration of the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 4 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state 5 criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 45–46; see Middlesex 6 County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (noting that 7 Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with 8 pending state judicial proceedings”). These concerns are particularly important in the 9 habeas context. Sherwood v. Tompkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 10 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 11 (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important state 12 interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal 13 issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco, 268 F.3d 791, 799 (9th Cir. 14 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner indicates he is currently 15 housed at the San Diego County Central Jail undergoing pre-trial proceedings with respect 16 to a second trial on capital charges. (ECF No. 1 at 13–14.) Criminal proceedings involve 17 important state interests. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 491-92 (1973) (citing 18 Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). Petitioner’s claim that he is not being provided adequate time in 19 the law library to prepare for his trial is the type of claim state courts provide an opportunity 20 to litigate, and his request for injunctive relief by this Court to ensure he has adequate 21 access to the law library is the type of relief prohibited by the abstention doctrine. See 22 Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764–65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual 23 circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or 24 habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from that the case 25 concluded in the state courts.”) Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary 26 circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from 27 interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings and the Petition must therefore be 28 dismissed without prejudice for Petitioner to pursue his claims in state court. See Juidice 1 || v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may 2 || not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action). 3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 5 || Petitioner’s claims challenging his pre-trial proceedings are dismissed without prejudice 6 ||under Younger abstention. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED 7 || as moot. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: October 21, 2020 (Sm 1S bre Honorable Todd W. Robinson 12 United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28