Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIE BERNICE MOORE, Case No.: 26cv2362-BTM (DDL)

12 Petitioner, ORDER CONSTRUING PETITION 13 v. AS FILED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241, GRANTING MOTION TO 14 LCDRF, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, 15 Respondent. AND DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner, an inmate confined at the Los Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility in 21 Santee, California, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2254 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) Petitioner 23 claims she has been held on a $200,000 bond for five months without a court date on false 24 criminal charges in violation of state law. (ECF No. 1 at 1-3.) 25 Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, she is a pretrial 26 detainee rather than a state prisoner confined pursuant to a state court judgment and 27 therefore may only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 28 See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006-07 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Section 2254 is properly 1 understood as ‘in effect implement(ing) the general grant of habeas corpus authority found 2 in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and 3 not in state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody 4 awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.”) 5 Petitioner indicates she has not been convicted but is being detained pending resolution of 6 criminal charges. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Accordingly, the Court will construe the petition as 7 one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 8 Petitioner has submitted an affidavit in support of her in forma pauperis motion 9 attesting an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 2 at 1-2.) The Court GRANTS 10 the request to proceed in forma pauperis. However, upon review, the Petition must be 11 dismissed. 12 Petitioner has failed to invoke the Court’s personal jurisdiction because she has 13 named the Los Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility as Respondent. “The actual person 14 who is [the] custodian [of the petitioner] must be the respondent.” Ashley v. Washington, 15 394 F.2d 125, 126 (9th Cir. 1968). Federal courts lack personal jurisdiction when a habeas 16 petition fails to name a proper respondent. Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 17 (9th Cir. 1996). 18 Petitioner has also failed to invoke the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction because 19 she alleges violations of state law only. (See ECF No. 1 at 3-4.) To invoke the Court’s 20 subject matter jurisdiction under 2241, Petitioner must allege she “is in custody in violation 21 of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 22 Finally, even if Petitioner could cure those defects of pleading, federal courts may 23 not interfere with ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. 24 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. 25 Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal 26 policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.”) The 27 Ninth Circuit has explained that: “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is ‘an 28 ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate(s) important state 1 interests’; (3) there is ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise 2 constitutional challenges’; and (4) the requested relief ‘seek(s) to enjoin’ or has ‘the 3 practical effect of enjoining’ the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 4 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018), quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. 5 Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 2014). 6 Each of those criteria are satisfied in this case. It is evident that Petitioner’s criminal 7 case is ongoing in state court, that those proceedings implicate and involve important state 8 interests, and there is no indication Petitioner cannot petition the state courts for the relief 9 she seeks. Petitioner’s claims in the instant Petition, which allege violations of state law 10 (see ECF No. 1 at 3-4), are the types of claims the state courts provide an opportunity to 11 present. See Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (courts “assume that state 12 procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the 13 contrary.”) Finally, it appears plain that the federal action sought, habeas relief, would 14 have the effect of enjoining the ongoing state criminal proceeding. See Younger, 401 U.S. 15 at 43-44 (holding that courts “should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a 16 criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not 17 suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.”) 18 Accordingly, because Petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary 19 circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from 20 interfering in her ongoing state criminal proceedings, abstention is required, and the 21 Petition must therefore be dismissed without prejudice. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 22 764-65 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled 23 to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury 24 comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”); 25 Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a 26 court may not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action without prejudice). 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the Petition as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2 ||§ 2241, GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2], and 3 || DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. The Court’s scheduling order is vacated. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || DATED: April 23, 2026 Ted 6 Hon. arry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28