2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

5 DARNELL QUENTIN BROCKINGTON, Case No. 2:22-cv-00787-CDS-DJA

6 Petitioner, ORDER

v. 7

8 THE STATE OF NEVADA DISTRICT ATTORNEY, et al., 9 Respondents. 10

11 12 Petitioner Darnell Quentin Brockington filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus 13 under

, seeking emergency federal review related to his ongoing state criminal 14 case and pretrial detention. ECF No. 1-1. This Court ordered Brockington to pay the filing fee, 15 and he timely complied. ECF Nos. 3, 6. This matter comes before the court on initial review 16 under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“Habeas Rules”). For the reasons discussed 17 below, the Court finds that federal abstention is required, so the petition is dismissed without 18 prejudice. 19 A. BACKGROUND1 20 On April 7, 2022, in Clark County, Nevada, the State filed an Information charging 21 Brockington with possession of a document or personal identifying information to establish 22 false status or identity. His case, State of Nevada v. Darnell Brockington, Case No. C-22-363891-1, 23 remains pending before the state district court. 24 In his petition for federal habeas relief, Brockington alleges: (1) law enforcement officers 25 admitted in his pre-trial hearing that his identification was never used in any crime, but they 26 27 1 The procedural history in this section is derived from the petitioner’s allegations as well as his 28 criminal matters in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County (“state district court”). This Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the state district court, which may be accessed 2 on it,” and (2) “a moving violation is not grounds to seize private religious or intellectual 3 property under copyright and trademark.” ECF No. 1-1 at 6. Brockington seeks to have “all 4 unconstitutional charges be dismissed or that [he] be granted release until [his] trial.”2

. 5 B. DISCUSSION 6 Habeas Rule 4 requires federal district courts to examine a habeas petition and order a 7 response unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. This rule allows 8 courts to screen and dismiss petitions that are patently frivolous, vague, conclusory, palpably 9 incredible, false, or plagued by procedural defects. See Valdez v. Montgomery,

(9th 10 Cir. 2019); Hendricks v. Vasquez,

(9th Cir. 1990) (collecting cases). Because a 11 federal habeas petitioner incarcerated by a state must give state courts a fair opportunity to act 12 on each of his claims before he presents them in a federal habeas petition, federal courts will not 13 consider his petition for habeas relief until he has properly exhausted his available state 14 remedies for all claims raised. See Boyd v. Thompson,

(9th Cir. 1998). 15 A claim remains unexhausted until the petitioner has given the highest available state 16 court the opportunity to consider the claim through direct appeal or state collateral-review 17 proceedings. O’Sullivan v. Boerckel,

, 844–45 (1999); Peterson v. Lampert,

, 18 1158 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). To properly exhaust state remedies on each claim, the habeas 19 petitioner must “present the state courts with the same claim he urges upon the federal court.” 20 Picard v. Connor,

(1971). The federal constitutional implications of a claim, not 21 just issues of state law, must have been raised in the state court to achieve exhaustion. Woods v. 22 Sinclair,

(9th Cir. 2014); Castillo v. McFadden,

(9th Cir. 23 2005) (fair presentation requires both the operative facts and federal legal theory upon 24 which a claim is based). A claim is not exhausted unless the petitioner has presented to the state 25 court the same operative facts and legal theory upon which his federal claim is based. Bland v. 26 California Dep’t of Corrections,

(9th Cir. 1994). 27 2 Brockington alleges that he was incarcerated at the Clark County Detention Center at the time 28 he filed his petition. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. However, using the Clark County Detention Center’s inmate search and the identification number provided by Brockington—7525810—it appears that he is no longer 2 remedies. Brockington alleges that he submitted evidence to the state justice court and the state 3 district court regarding his claims (see ECF No. 1-1 at 2), but there is no demonstration that 4 Brockington sought relief by a Nevada appellate court.3 See, e.g., Arevalo v. Hennessy,

, 5 764–67 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding that California petitioner properly exhausted his state remedies 6 by filing two motions in the trial court, a habeas petition in the court of appeal, and a habeas 7 petition in the state supreme court, each of which was denied). 8 But even if this Court assumes that Brockington has exhausted his claims, he seeks 9 federal judicial intervention in a pending state criminal proceeding, which is simply not 10 available to him. Cf. e.g., Sherwood v. Tomkins,

(9th Cir. 1983); Carden v. Montana, 11

, 83–85 (9th Cir. 1980). The comity-based Younger abstention doctrine prevents 12 federal courts from enjoining pending state court criminal proceedings, even if there is an 13 allegation of a constitutional violation, unless there is an extraordinary circumstance that 14 creates a threat of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris,

, 53–54 (1971). The United 15 States Supreme Court has instructed that “federal-court abstention is required” when there is “a 16 parallel, pending state criminal proceeding.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs,

(2013) 17 (emphasis added); Gilbertson v. Albright,

(9th Cir. 2004) (federal courts generally 18 abstain from granting any relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings). 19 Injuries are only irreparable if the threat to a petitioner’s federally protected rights cannot be 20 eliminated through his defense of the criminal case. Younger,

. 21 This case does not present extraordinary circumstances. The petitioner challenges law 22 enforcement regarding his arrest, charges, and pretrial detention. Defendants in state criminal 23 proceedings routinely allege that state criminal proceedings violate their constitutional rights, 24 including fundamental rights, which makes this a regular occurrence, not an extraordinary 25 circumstance. Brockington’s situation is no different in substance from that of any criminal 26 defendant facing the potential loss of constitutional rights—including the most fundamental 27 right, to liberty—in a pending criminal prosecution. In addition, Brockington’s pretrial motion 28 3 This Court takes judicial notice of the online docket records of the Nevada appellate courts, 2 faces no extraordinary or irreparable injuries, so federal abstention is required. Because the 3 charges against Brockington are still pending, dismissal of this action without prejudice will not 4 materially impact the analysis of any issue in a later-filed habeas proceeding or otherwise result 5 in substantial prejudice. 6 C. CONCLUSION 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to file Petitioner 8 Darnell Quentin Brockington’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1-1]. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner Darnell Quentin Brockington’s petition for 10 writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1-1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is denied, as jurists of 12 reason would not find dismissal of the petition to be debatable or wrong. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to informally 14 electronically service Respondents under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases by 15 adding Nevada Attorney General Aaron D. Ford as counsel for respondents and sending a notice 16 of electronic filing to his office of the petition [ECF No. 1-1] and this order. No response is 17 required from Respondents other than to respond to any orders of a reviewing court. 18 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to enter final 19 judgment dismissing this action without prejudice and close this case. 20

21 DATED this 14th day of June 2022.

22

23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28