1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DION SCOTT BUCKELEW, Case No.: 20cv592-MMA (WVG)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 JUDGE WASHINGTON, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a person detained at the San Diego County Central Jail awaiting trial 18 has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to

. Doc. 19 No. 1. He claims he is represented by an appointed public defender acting under a 20 conflict of interest who has rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during pretrial 21 proceedings, and that his pre-trial proceedings, including two motions to relieve counsel, 22 are presided over by biased state court judges.

at 2–6. Although unclear, it appears 23 he may be attempting to present claims alleging he has not received adequate medical 24 treatment for his physical and mental conditions.

at 10–22. 25 ABSTENTION 26 The Petition must be dismissed because it is clear this Court is barred from 27 consideration of the claims by the abstention doctrine announced in Younger v. Harris, 28

(1971). Under Younger, federal courts may not interfere with ongoing state 1 criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances.

at 45–46; see Middlesex 2 County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n,

(1982) (Younger 3 “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state 4 judicial proceedings.”). These concerns are particularly important in the habeas context. 5 Sherwood v. Tompkins,

, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 6 Absent extraordinary circumstances, abstention under Younger is required when: 7 (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings involve important 8 state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the 9 federal issue. Columbia Basin Apartment Ass’n v. City of Pasco,

(9th 10 Cir. 2001). All three of these criteria are satisfied here. Petitioner indicates he is 11 currently housed at the San Diego County Central Jail undergoing pre-trial proceedings 12 with respect to charges of attempted murder, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, 13 possession of a firearm by a felon, possession of a firearm, and assault with a firearm. 14 Doc. No. 1 at 20. Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of his 15 motions to replace appointed counsel are the type of claims that state courts provide an 16 opportunity to raise on direct appeal. Abstention is therefore required. See Drury v. Cox, 17

(9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a 18 defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus 19 until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in 20 the state courts.”) Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances 21 exist which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from interfering with 22 ongoing state criminal proceedings. Juidice v. Vail,

(1977) (holding 23 that if Younger abstention applies, a court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss 24 the action). 25 CLAIMS NOT PROPERLY BROUGHT ON FEDERAL HABEAS 26 Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to raise claims regarding the 27 conditions of his confinement involving an alleged failure to provide adequate medical 28 care for his physical and mental conditions, they are not properly brought on federal 1 ||habeas. Such claims are not cognizable on federal habeas because they do not challenge 2 constitutional validity or duration of confinement. See Heck v. Humphrey,

||477, 480-85 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). Challenges to the 4 ||fact or duration of confinement are brought by petition for a writ of habeas corpus; 5 ||challenges to conditions of confinement are brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 6 ||U.S.C. § 1983. See Preiser,

. When a state prisoner is challenging 7 very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a 8 ||determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that 9 ||imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus. /d. at 500. On the 10 |/other hand, a § 1983 action is a proper remedy for a prisoner making a constitutional 11 ||challenge to the conditions of confinement but not the fact or length of custody. □□□ at 12 ||499. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES this action without prejudice. 15 ||Petitioner’s claims challenging his pre-trial proceedings are dismissed without prejudice 16 ||under Younger abstention. Petitioner’s claims regarding the conditions of his 17 ||confinement are dismissed without prejudice to present in a new civil rights action 18 ||pursuant to

which will be given a new case number. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 ||Dated: March 31, 2020 22 23 Mackall (lille HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28