1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR, Case No. 2:20-cv-00857-RFB-EJY 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 SHERIFF JOSEPH LOMBARDO, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 This is a closed habeas corpus action under

. The court directed petitioner, 18 Afshin Bahrampour, to show cause why the court should not dismiss this action because it needed 19 to abstain from interfering with ongoing state-court criminal proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 20

(1971). ECF No. 3. The court also dismissed ground 9 through 12 because they were 21 plainly without merit. Bahrampour filed a response to the order to show cause and a motion for 22 reconsideration. ECF No. 5, 6.1 Bahrampour did not persuade the court. The court dismissed the 23 action and entered judgment. ECF No. 7, 8. 24 Two days after the court entered judgment, Bahrampour filed another response to the order 25 to show cause. ECF No. 9. The court does not know if this second response and the order 26 dismissing the action crossed in the mail, or if the second response is a response to the dismissal of 27 the action.

28 1 The response and the motion are the same document but docketed individually. 1 Bahrampour's initial response was flawed. Bahrampour focused entirely on the court's 2 dismissal of grounds 9 through 12 as fantastic and frivolous. He did not address the court's concern 3 that it needs to abstain from interfering in ongoing criminal proceedings in the state courts. See 4 ECF No. 7 at 2. The Court dismissed the action for that reason.

5 Bahrampour's second response does address Younger. The court will construe it as a motion 6 for reconsideration of the dismissal of this action. 7 Bahrampour presents five reasons why the court should consider this case, which the Court 8 quotes with minor corrections: 9 1. The plaintiff is innocent until and unless found guilty and has a right to a reasonable bail. Punishment should not both precede the conviction and follow the 10 conviction. 11 2. Nevada Revised Statute defining acts of terrorism or attempted acts of terrorism is void-for-vagueness and fails to give fair notice or encourages arbitrary 12 enforcement of the law. 13 3. Presently plaintiff's bail is set at $1,000,000.00 (one million dollars) because Nevada's terrorism statute (that is void for vagueness) is a class A felony. It's illegal 14 to set bail on void criminal laws. 15 4. Setting such a high bail because of a void statute irreparably harms the plaintiff because he cannot exercise his right to bail and be free pending his trial and 16 subsequent acquittal or conviction. 17 5. Setting bail to hold someone over for trial on an obviously vague and void statute is irreparable harm because it is the most serious felony charge the plaintiff 18 faces and were it not for this charge the other charges would have been resolved by now through plea negotiations because plaintiff has been in custody over 42 months 19 on this case. 20 ECF No. 9 at 3-4. 21 Bahrampour appears to try to excuse the application of Younger by arguing that his bail is 22 too high. Younger abstention is not appropriate for a claim that a person is subject to excessive 23 bail for two reasons. Arevalo v. Hennessy,

(9th Cir. 2018). First, litigation over bail 24 is distinct from the criminal prosecution and thus would not interfere with that prosecution.

at 25 766. Second, excessive bail itself is a constitutional deprivation that causes irreparable harm, and 26 irreparable harm is an exception to Younger abstention.

. 27 However, Bahrampour does not allege some constitutional error in the process of setting 28 bail, nor does he allege that the bail, by itself, is excessive. Instead, he argues that Nev. Rev. Stat. 1 § 202.4415, defining acts of terrorism, is unconstitutionally vague. In turn, he could not be 2 || prosecuted under

, which prohibits acts of terrorism or attempted acts of 3 || terrorism. Then, with those statutes out of the way, he argues that his bail is excessive for the 4 || remaining charges. 5 Bahrampour does not persuade the Court that Younger abstention is inappropriate. To reach 6 || his excessive-bail claim, the Court first must determine that § 202.4415 is unconstitutionally vague 7 | and that § 202.445 is inoperative. The prosecution has charged Bahrampour with violating 8 || § 202.445. A determination that § 202.4415 is unconstitutionally vague thus would interfere with 9 | the ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. Consequently, the Court will not depart from its 10 || earlier determination that it should abstain from interfering with ongoing state-court criminal 11 || proceedings. 12 Reasonable jurists would not find this determination to be debatable or wrong, and the Court 13 | will not issue a certificate of appealability. 14 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that petitioner's response (ECF No. 9), which the court 15 | construes as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED. 16 IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability will not issue. 17 DATED: January 20, 2021. “A 18 — wag Ss jOULY ARE, II 19 United States [ZistzierJudge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28