Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VALERIE B. MOORE, Case No.: 26-cv-3089-BJC-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) VACATING SCHEDULING ORDER; 14 15 LOS COLINAS DETENTION AND (2) CONSTRUING PETITION AS REENTRY FACILITY, et al., FILED PURSUANT TO 28 16 U.S.C. § 2241; Respondents. 17 (3) GRANTING MOTION TO 18 PROCEED IN FORMA 19 PAUPERIS [ECF No. 3]; AND 20 (4) DISMISSING PETITION 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE 22 Petitioner, an inmate confined at the Los Colinas Detention and Reentry Facility in 23 Santee, California, has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 24 § 2254 along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 3. Petitioner claims 25 she has been unlawfully held in custody on a $200,000 bond since November 27, 2025. 26 ECF No. 1 at 2. 27 // 28 1 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 2 On June 10, 2026, the Court issued a scheduling order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 3 and appointed the San Diego office of the Federal Defenders to represent Petitioner. ECF 4 No. 9. However, the present case was filed as an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and 5 not 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Moreover, the office of Federal Defenders filed a status report stating 6 that “it does not appear that appointment of counsel is necessary or beneficial to Ms. Moore 7 given her ongoing state criminal proceedings and current representation in those 8 proceedings.” ECF No. 11 at 2. 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) provides that a court may sua sponte “correct 10 a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found” 11 in an order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(a). Here, it appears that the scheduling order was entered in 12 error and appointment of counsel is not required. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the 13 scheduling order and conditional appointment of counsel pursuant to Rule 60(a). 14 II. BASIS FOR PETITION 15 Although Petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, she is a pretrial 16 detainee rather than a state prisoner confined pursuant to a state court judgment and 17 therefore may only proceed with a habeas action in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 18 See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1006–07 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Section 2254 is properly 19 understood as ‘in effect implement(ing) the general grant of habeas corpus authority found 20 in § 2241, as long as the person is in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court, and 21 not in state custody for some other reason, such as pre-conviction custody, custody 22 awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a conviction.”) 23 Petitioner indicates she has not been convicted but is being detained pending resolution of 24 criminal charges. (See ECF No. 1 at 2.) Accordingly, the Court CONSTRUES the petition 25 as one filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 26 III. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 27 Petitioner has submitted an affidavit in support of her in forma pauperis motion 28 attesting an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (See ECF No. 3.) The Court therefore 1 GRANTS the request to proceed in forma pauperis. 2 IV. FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM 3 Upon review, however, the Petition is subject to dismissal because Petitioner has 4 also failed to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction. To invoke the Court’s subject matter 5 jurisdiction under § 2241, Petitioner must allege she “is in custody in violation of the 6 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Here, 7 Petitioner alleges violations of state law only. (See ECF No. 1 at 2–3.) Because Petitioner 8 fails to state a cognizable federal claim, the Petition must be DISMISSED. 9 V. ABSTENTION 10 Finally, even if Petitioner stated a cognizable claim, the case must be dismissed 11 because state court proceedings are ongoing. Federal courts may not interfere with ongoing 12 state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401 13 U.S. 37, 45–46 (1971); see Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 14 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982) (stating Younger “espouse[d] a strong federal policy against 15 federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings”). The Ninth Circuit has 16 explained that: “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is ‘an ongoing state 17 judicial proceeding’; (2) the proceeding ‘implicate(s) important state interests’; (3) there is 18 ‘an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges’; and 19 (4) the requested relief ‘seek(s) to enjoin’ or has ‘the practical effect of enjoining’ the 20 ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) 21 (quoting ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758 (9th Cir. 22 2014)). 23 Each of those criteria are satisfied here. It is evident that Petitioner’s criminal case 24 is ongoing in state court, that those proceedings implicate and involve important state 25 interests, and there is no indication Petitioner cannot petition the state courts for the relief 26 she seeks. Petitioner’s claims, which allege violations of state law (see ECF No. 1 at 2–3), 27 are the types of claims the state courts provide an opportunity to present. See Pennzoil Co. 28 v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987) (stating “a federal court should assume that state 1 || procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the 2 || contrary’’). Finally, it appears plain that the federal action sought, habeas relief, would have 3 effect of enjoining the ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 4 ||43-44 (holding that courts “should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a 5 criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not 6 || suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief”). 7 Accordingly, because Petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary 8 ||circumstances exist which would relieve this Court of its obligation to abstain from 9 ||interfering in her ongoing state criminal proceedings, abstention is required, and the 10 || Petition is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice. See Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764- 11 (9th Cir. 1972) (“[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to 12 || have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes 13 judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts.”’); Juidice 14 Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (holding that if Younger abstention applies, a court may 15 |} not retain jurisdiction but should dismiss the action without prejudice). 16 VI. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons discussed above the Court: 18 1) VACATES the scheduling order, 19 2) CONSTRUES the Petition as brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 20 3) GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3), and 21 4) DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 1, 2026 24 25 26 a Ut Oh» fe □□□ 27 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 28 United States District Judge