Ballester v. Hallahan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ELEANOR LECLAIR BALLESTER, Case No.: 25cv568-LL-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. 14 MAUREEN FRANCIS HALLAHAN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On March 10, 2025, Petitioner Eleanor LeClair Ballester, proceeding pro se, filed a 20 document styled “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241” 21 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1. Petitioner claims that the bench warrant “under which she is 22 pursued is constitutionally and lawfully void” and seeks an order “quashing” the warrant 23 and declaring “the warrant and court actions for case SCD302834 and CD302834 against 24 Petitioner null and void.” Id. at 2, 4. 25 The Court notes that this Petition is similar to a petition filed by Ms. Ballester in 26 Ballester v. Martinez, et al., which the Court dismissed pursuant to Younger abstension and 27 lack of exhaustion. Order Granting Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss, Ballester v. Martinez, 28 et al., Case No. 24cv1738-LL-JLB (S.D. Cal. April 28, 2025). Both petitions seek relief 1 from criminal case number SCD302834 in the Superior Court of California, County of San 2 Diego. See id. at 2–3; ECF No. 1 at 4. 3 Upon examining a petition for habeas corpus, “[i]f it plainly appears from the 4 petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district 5 court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 6 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. This rule may apply to any habeas 7 corpus petition. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 8 The Court has examined the instant Petition and finds it should abstain from 9 interceding in Petitioner’s ongoing state trial proceedings. Under what is referred to as 10 Younger abstention, a federal court is generally precluded from interceding in ongoing state 11 criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 12 45, 53–54 (1971). In the Ninth Circuit, abstention is appropriate when “(1) there is an 13 ongoing state judicial proceeding, (2) those proceedings implicate important state interests, 14 (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional 15 challenges,” and (4) “the requested relief must seek to enjoin—or have the practical effect 16 of enjoining—ongoing state proceedings.” ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. 17 Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 18 “[S]o long as there is no showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary 19 circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate, the federal courts should abstain.” 20 Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). 21 The Court finds that Younger abstention is appropriate here. First, there is an 22 ongoing state criminal case against Petitioner. According to the San Diego County Sheriff’s 23 Office website, since the Petition was filed, Petitioner was sentenced and has an upcoming 24 court date of May 8, 2025.1 Sheriff’s Who is in Jail, San Diego County Sheriff’s Office, 25 26 27 1 The Court takes judicial notice of this public record available on a government inmate locator website. See United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 n.2. (9th Cir. 2011); 28 1 https://apps.sdsheriff.net/wij/wij.aspx (enter “Ballester” as last name and “Eleanor” as first 2 name) (last visited May 2, 2025). State proceedings are considered ongoing for purposes 3 of Younger abstention until state appellate remedies have been exhausted. See Huffman v. 4 Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 609 (1975). 5 Second, there is an important state interest in prosecuting criminal offenses free from 6 federal interference. See Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (“This Court has 7 recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from 8 federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence 9 a court considering equitable types of relief.”). 10 Third, Petitioner has adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 11 constitutional challenges. Petitioner may appeal a final judgment of conviction. Cal. Penal 12 Code § 1237. 13 Fourth, Petitioner’s requested relief seeks to enjoin the ongoing state proceedings. 14 Petitioner seeks court actions in the state criminal case to be declared “null and void,” 15 which if granted, would enjoin her current sentence. 16 The Court finds Petitioner has not shown that any extraordinary circumstances exist 17 to warrant exception to Younger abstention. Petitioner makes only factually unsupported 18 allegations of constitutional violations, such as contending that there was “no valid 19 jurisdiction, valid venue, crime of common law, true bill of particulars, lawful complaint 20 or determination of probable cause before the warrant was [issued].” ECF No. 1 at 3 21 (alteration in original). Petitioner fails to demonstrate that her warrant, criminal charges, 22 or conviction were the result of bad faith or harassment. Therefore, the Court finds that 23 Younger abstention applies. 24 Additionally, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to exhaust state remedies, which 25 is an alternate reason for dismissal of her Petition. See Murphy v. Wilson, 409 F.2d 840, 26 27 Turner v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 320cv00163JAHAHG, 2020 WL 905633, at *1 n.1 28 1 841 (9th Cir. 1969) (“[Petitioner] will not have exhausted his available state remedies until 2 the state appeal proceedings have been completed and a final state judgment has been 3 entered.”). “When . . . an appeal of a state criminal conviction is pending, a would-be 4 habeas corpus petitioner must await the outcome of his appeal before his state remedies are 5 exhausted, even where the issue to be challenged in the writ of habeas corpus has been 6 finally settled in the state courts.” Sherwood v. Tomkins, 716 F.2d 632, 634 (9th Cir. 1983). 7 Leave to amend is generally granted “even if no request to amend the pleading was 8 made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation 9 of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). The 10 Court finds any amendment here would be futile because the Petition cannot proceed due 11 to Younger abstention and unexhausted claims. The Court thus denies leave to amend. 12 A certificate of appealability must be obtained by a petitioner in order to pursue an 13 appeal from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained 14 of arises out of process issued by a State court.” 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). “The district court must issue or deny a certificate 16 of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant.” Rule 11(a), Rules 17 Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254; see also Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 18 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules 19 to a habeas petition not covered by Rule 1(a).”). A certificate of appealability will issue 20 “only if” the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 21 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). A “substantial showing” requires a demonstration that “‘reasonable 22 jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 23 wrong.’” Beaty v. Stewart, 303 F.3d 975, 984 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 24 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 25 The Court finds issuing a certificate of appealability is not appropriate because 26 reasonable jurists would not find debatable or incorrect the Court’s conclusion that this 27 Petition cannot proceed due to Younger abstention and lack of exhaustion. Accordingly, 28 the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. 1 For the reasons stated above, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice Petitioner’s 2 || Petition and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Court further DENIES AS MOOT 3 other pending requests filed by Petitioner and directs the Clerk of Court to close this 4 || action. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: May 5, 2025 NO g Honorable Linda Lopez 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28