(HC) Craig v. D'Agostini

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NORMAN JOHN CRAIG, Case No. 2:21-cv-01885-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER FINDING THAT THE PETITION DOES NOT STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 13 v. AND GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND WITHIN SIXTY DAYS D’AGOSTINI, ECF No. 1 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After reviewing the petition, I find that it does not state a cognizable federal claim. I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend before recommending that this action be dismissed.

20 The petition is before me for preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Under Rule 4, the judge assigned to the habeas proceeding must examine the habeas petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Valdez v. Montgomery, 918 F.3d 687, 693 (9th Cir. 2019); Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998).

25 As an initial matter, the petition is difficult to read and, despite my best efforts, I cannot understand petitioner’s claims. However, I am able to understand petitioner’s statements indicating that he is still awaiting trial. ECF No. 1 at 2. I must abstain from considering his claims while his state proceedings are active. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The | four requirements for abstention under Younger—that “(1) there is an ‘ongoing state judicial | proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate || opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief | ‘seek[s] to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding,” || appear to be met here. Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). The petition | indicates that there is an ongoing state proceeding. State criminal proceedings implicate | important state interests. There is no argument that petitioner’s claims could not be raised in his || state proceedings. Finally, his claims appear to attack the very legitimacy of the proceedings | against him, ECF No. 1 at 4 (alleging a conspiracy against him and false imprisonment), and | granting his petition would almost certainly have the practical effect of enjoining them.

11 I will give petitioner an opportunity to amend so that he can explain why this action | should proceed.

13 It is ORDERED that: 14 1. Petitioner may file an amended petition within sixty days of this order’s entry. If | he does not, I will recommend that the current petition be dismissed for the reasons stated in this | order.

17 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send petitioner a federal habeas form.

19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

20 ( 1 Oy — Dated: _ November 23, 2021 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE