1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BRAD BAYMON, Case No. 21-cv-01691-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE DISMISSAL v. 9

10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SONOMA, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee, filed a pro se civil rights complaint under

. 14 The amended complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and plaintiff has filed a second 15 amended complaint. 16 DISCUSSION 17 STANDARD OF REVIEW 18 Federal courts must engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek 19 redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. 20 § 1915A(a). In its review, the Court must identify any cognizable claims, and dismiss any claims 21 which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek 22 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. at 1915A(b)(1),(2). Pro se 23 pleadings must be liberally construed. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t,

(9th 24 Cir. 1990). 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain statement of the 26 claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although a complaint “does not need detailed 27 factual allegations, . . . a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to 1 cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above 2 the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007) (citations 3 omitted). A complaint must proffer “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 4 face.”

. The United States Supreme Court has explained the “plausible on its face” 5 standard of Twombly: “While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they 6 must be supported by factual allegations. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court 7 should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement 8 to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009). 9 To state a claim under

, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) a right secured by 10 the Constitution or laws of the United States was violated, and (2) the alleged deprivation was 11 committed by a person acting under the color of state law. West v. Atkins,

(1988). 12 LEGAL CLAIMS 13 Plaintiff is in custody pending trial and seeks to be released. Under principles of comity 14 and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings by 15 granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. 16 Harris,

(1971). Federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal 17 prosecutions absent a showing of the state’s bad faith or harassment, or a showing that the statute 18 challenged is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” Younger, 19

(cost, anxiety and inconvenience of criminal defense not kind of special 20 circumstances or irreparable harm that would justify federal court intervention; statute must be 21 unconstitutional in every “clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner” it is applied). 22 In the original complaint, plaintiff alleged that he was being illegally held in custody 23 pending trial and the Superior Court of Sonoma County and the Sonoma County District 24 Attorney’s Office were violating the Constitution. The original complaint was dismissed with 25 leave to amend for plaintiff to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal court 26 intervention pursuant to Younger. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint but failed to demonstrate 27 extraordinary circumstances to warrant federal court intervention. The claim was dismissed, and 1 exhausted his claims. 2 In the amended complaint, plaintiff also raised a new claim that he was being denied 3 access to the courts. The new access to the courts claim was dismissed with leave to amend after 4 || the Court identified the deficiencies with his allegations. In this second amended complaint, 5 plaintiff has not discussed the access to the courts claim, but instead again seeks monetary and 6 || injunctive relief regarding his pretrial detention. Plaintiff has again failed to demonstrate 7 || extraordinary circumstances to warrant intervention. Because further amendment would be futile, 8 this case is dismissed without leave to amend. 9 CONCLUSION 10 1. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. 11 2. The clerk is requested to CLOSE this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: July 8, 2021 14 15 JAMES BAaMxATO = 16 United Sates District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28