1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON THOMAS PARSONS, G26143, Case No. 22-cv-01943-CRB (PR)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF 14 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, Warden, APPEALABILITY 15 Respondent. (ECF No. 2)

16 I. 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison (CAL) in Calipatria, 18 California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

19 challenging a recent conviction and sentence from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Petitioner 20 also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under

. 21 II. 22 On August 18, 2021, petitioner was sentenced to 100 years to life, consecutive to 50 years, 23 in state prison after a jury in Santa Clara County Superior Court found him guilty of several counts 24 of armed robbery and of being a felon in constructive possession of a firearm. 25 On September 2, 2021, petitioner filed a notice of appeal. He also later filed several state 26 petitions for post-conviction collateral relief which, like his direct appeal, are still pending in the California Court of Appeal. 27 1 III. 2 In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held that federal courts should abstain from 3 staying or enjoining pending state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances. 401

(1971). The Ninth Circuit subsequently held that, as a logical implication of the 5 abstention doctrine announced in Younger, a district court should abstain from entertaining a 6 federal habeas petition “until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the 7 case concluded in the state courts.” Drury v. Cox,

(9th Cir. 1972). The 8 Supreme since has made clear that the rationale of Younger abstention applies throughout 9 appellate proceedings, requiring that state appellate review of a state court judgment be exhausted before federal court intervention is permitted. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd.,

, 607-11 10 (1975). Absent extraordinary circumstances, a district court therefore “may not adjudicate a 11 federal habeas petition while a petitioner’s direct state appeal is pending.” Henderson v. Johnson, 12

(9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). 13 Younger abstention may not be appropriate in cases of proven harassment or bad faith 14 prosecutions undertaken by state officials without hope of obtaining a valid conviction or in other 15 special circumstances where danger of irreparable injury is both great and immediate. See Bean v. 16 Mateucci,

(9th Cir. 2021). But petitioner makes no indication much less 17 showing of special circumstances warranting federal intervention in the ongoing state appellate 18 review of his state court criminal conviction. Petitioner’s assertion that the state courts are taking 19 too long to address his claims does not compel a different conclusion. After all, petitioner’s direct 20 appeal has been pending in the California Court of Appeal for barely eight months. Cf. Page v. 21 King,

(9th Cir. 2019) (delay may constitute extraordinary circumstance where 22 state court delay is extreme and there is no end in sight to the state court proceedings). 23 IV. 24 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under § 2254 is 25 DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling after state criminal proceedings, including appeal, are 26 completed. And pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, a certificate of 27 appealability (COA) under

(c) is DENIED because it cannot be said that that ] “Jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural 2 || ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000). 3 But based solely on his affidavit of poverty, petitioner’s application for leave to proceed 4 || IFP (ECF No. 2) is GRANTED. 5 IT ISSO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 10, 2022 7 Zc K — CHARLES R. BREYER 8 United States District Judge 9 10 1] 12

2B

15 16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28