Egan v. Weinreb

1

Michael P. EGAN, Petitioner, v. Brad WEINREB, et al., Respondents.

No. 3:23-cv-1307-AGS-JLB

United States District Court, S.D. California

July 24, 2023

ORDER: (1) GRANTING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING PETITION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Andrew G. Schopler United States District Judge.

Petitioner Michael Egan is awaiting trial in state court on the misdemeanor charge of driving under the influence of drugs. (See ECF 1, at 2.) He petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus and moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF 1, 2.)

REQUEST TO PROCEED IFP

Egan has no income and insufficient funds to afford the $5.00 filing fee. (See ECF 2, at 1-2.) So, the Court grants Egan's application to prosecute this action without prepaying fees or costs and without posting security. The Clerk of the Court shall file the habeas petition without prepayment of the filing fee.

ABSTENTION

The habeas petition, however, must be dismissed due to the Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Younger “instructs federal courts to decline to hear” federal cases that implicate certain parallel state proceedings, including “ongoing state criminal prosecutions.” Applied Underwriters, Inc. v Lara, 37 F.4th 579, 587-88 (9th Cir. 2022). To abstain the court must find that the parallel state proceeding: (1) is “ongoing”; (2) “implicates important state interests”; and (3) “provides adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges.” Id. at 588 (cleaned up).

All three criteria are met here. First, the state proceeding is ongoing. Egan is awaiting a July 24, 2023 state misdemeanor trial for driving under the influence of drugs. (See ECF 1, at 2, 6.) Second, there is no question that the state case involves important state

2

interests. “The States' interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court ....” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) Finally, Egan has an adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional challenges. Among other things he asserts that various federal constitutional rights have been violated by his onerous bail conditions and the denial of certain pretrial discovery. (ECF 1, at 4-7.) Egan may fairly pursue all these issues in state court. At least, there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED, but the petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. This Court abstains from interfering with...