1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LUIS JESUS MASSIE, No. 1:24-cv-00726-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 14 TO SUMMARILY DISMISS PREMATURE F. GUZMAN, Warden, PETITION 15 Respondent. [TWENTY-ONE DAY OBJECTION 16 DEADLINE] 17 18 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. Petitioner filed the instant habeas petition on 20 June 21, 2024, challenging his 2021 conviction in Kern County Superior Court. Because the 21 petition is premature, the Court will recommend it be DISMISSED. 22 DISCUSSION 23 A. Preliminary Review of Petition 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases allows a district court to dismiss a 25 petition if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 26 entitled to relief in the district court . . . .” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 27 The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 8 indicate that the court may dismiss a petition for writ of 28 habeas corpus, either on its own motion under Rule 4, pursuant to the respondent’s motion to 1 dismiss, or after an answer to the petition has been filed. Herbst v. Cook,

(9th Cir. 2 2001). 3 B. Premature Petition 4 On November 5, 2021, Petitioner was convicted in the Kern County Superior Court of 5 receiving a stolen vehicle, driving or taking another’s vehicle, evading a peace officer, possession 6 of ammunition by a previous offender, and bringing a controlled substance into a jail. (Doc. 1 at 7 1.) He appealed to the California Court of Appeals, which affirmed judgment on May 13, 2024. 8 (Doc. 1 at 2.) On June 17, 2024, Petitioner submitted a petition for review to the California 9 Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 2, 75.) Petitioner states the petition is currently pending. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 10 It is premature for this court to review Petitioner’s collateral attack on his conviction 11 because direct review is still ongoing, and there is no final judgment. A federal court’s 12 jurisdiction to review the merits of a habeas petition commences, in pertinent part, on “the date on 13 which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review.”

(d)(1)(A). 14 Under Younger v. Harris,

(1971), federal courts may not enjoin pending state 15 criminal proceedings except under extraordinary circumstances.

. Younger abstention 16 prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction when three criteria are met: 1) there are ongoing 17 state judicial proceedings; 2) an important state interest is involved; and 3) there is an adequate 18 opportunity to raise the federal question at issue in the state proceedings. H.C. ex rel. Gordon v. 19 Koppel,

(9th Cir. 2000). 20 The Younger criteria are satisfied here. First, the judgment is not final. Second, review 21 proceedings implicate an important state interest in enforcing criminal laws without federal 22 interference. See Kelly v. Robinson,

(1986) (“[T]he States’ interest in 23 administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most 24 powerful of the considerations that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief”) 25 (citing Younger,

). Finally, the California state courts provide an adequate 26 forum in which Petitioner may pursue his claims. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.,

, 27 15 (1987) (“[A] federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, 28 in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.”). When the state proceedings have fully 1 concluded and his conviction becomes final, Petitioner may seek federal habeas relief. See, e.g., 2 Fellows v. Matteson,

(C.D. Cal. May 18, 2020) (prisoner “may seek federal 3 habeas relief after his California state criminal proceedings, including his pending SB 620 motion 4 in the California Court of Appeal, have concluded with a final judgment of conviction.”). For 5 these reasons, the Court does not find that extraordinary circumstances warrant intervention. 6 Based on the foregoing, the Court recommends that this action be dismissed without 7 prejudice as premature and barred by Younger. 8 ORDER 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a District 10 Judge to the case. 11 RECOMMENDATION 12 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the habeas corpus 13 petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. 14 This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge 15 assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 16 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 17 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections 18 with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 19 and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28

(b)(1)(C). Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 21 appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

(9th Cir. 1991). This 22 recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth Circuit Court of 23 Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, 24 should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26

27 Dated: June 27, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28