1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JOSEPH DANIEL TABRON, Case No. 21-cv-04517-EMC

8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME

10 RAYMOND MADDEN, Docket No. 32 11 Respondent.

12 13 14 The Court screened Petitioner’s habeas petition and ordered Respondent to file an answer. 15 Docket No. 9. After an extension of time, Respondent did so. Docket Nos. 20-21. Petitioner 16 subsequently was granted multiple extensions of time to file a traverse. 17 Petitioner’s extension motions mentioned that Petitioner is being held in jail in Alameda 18 County “for resentencing,” and that Petitioner is pursuing an “1170.95 petition.” Docket Nos. 29, 19 30. Because it appeared that Petitioner had proceedings pending in state court which may result in 20 his conviction being vacated, the Court issued an order for Petitioner to show cause why this 21 action is not Younger-barred. Docket No. 31. 22 On March 6, 2023, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file his response as 23 he is still located at the Santa Rita Jail where there is limited library access, which hampers his 24 ability to do legal research. Docket No. 32. For Petitioner’s benefit, the Court will repeat the 25 circumstances under which Younger applies. Abstention under the Younger principle is required 26 when: (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important 27 state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in 1 practical effect of doing so. San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action 2 Comm. v. City of San Jose,

(9th Cir. 2008). Multiple courts, including 3 another court in this District, have found the Younger criteria met and dismissed federal habeas 4 petitions, under circumstances identical to those presented here. See, e.g., Anthony v. Pollard, No. 5 21-CV-00569-HSG,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2021) (finding Younger 6 abstention necessary).1 If this action must be dismissed pursuant to Younger, “[t]he dismissal 7 [will be] without prejudice to Petitioner filing a new petition when all state court proceedings 8 arising out of the resentencing are concluded.” Id. at *3. 9 Petitioner’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Petitioner must file his 10 response no later for April 10, 2023. Respondent’s reply is due by April 24, 2023. 11 This order disposes of Docket No. 32. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 10, 2023 16 17 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 1 See also Contreras v. Montgomery, No. 16-CV-2813-BTM(BLM),

, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2023) (finding Younger abstention necessary); Sinsun v. Pickett, No. 22-CV-8354- 26 CJC-SP,

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 11, 2022) (same), report and recommendation adopted sub nom. Isaac Sinsun, Petitioner, v. Jim Pickett, Respondent., No. 22-CV-8354-CJC-SP, 27

(C.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2022); Banks v. Lynch, No. 22-CV-0827-TLN-KJN-P, 2020