Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01568-MMC

Document 9

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARC CHARLES MENDOZA, Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF SONOMA COUNTY, Defendant /

No. C-08-1568 MMC ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED

United States District Court

Before the Court is plaintiff Marc Charles Mendoza's ("Mendoza") Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, filed March 21, 2008.1 Mendoza alleges he is a defendant in an ongoing criminal matter pending in the Superior Court of California, County of Sonoma, specifically, "a misdemeanor traffic case." (See Compl. at 3:2.) Mendoza further alleges that the trial court denied his motion to dismiss the matter and that Mendoza thereafter sought review by filing a petition for a writ of mandate in the appellate division of the Superior Court. According to Mendoza, he then requested the trial court stay the proceedings, but such request was denied; Mendoza alleges the denial of his request for a stay has deprived him of due process. As relief, Mendoza seeks a declaration, from a federal district court, that the state trial court erred by

The instant action was reassigned to the undersigned on June 12, 2008.

Case 3:08-cv-01568-MMC

Document 9

Filed 06/17/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

not granting his request for a stay. "[A] federal court should not enjoin a state criminal prosecution begun prior to the institution of the federal suit except in very unusual situations," Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 69 (1971); indeed, "the normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions," see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Similarly, a district court should normally decline to issue declaratory relief with respect to a pending state criminal matter because issuance of a declaration "has virtually the same practical impact as a formal injunction." See Samuels, 401 U.S. at 72. Here, the declaratory relief sought by Mendoza would appear to be of the type that a federal district court should not issue. See id. Accordingly, Mendoza is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than July 2, 2008, why the instant action should not be dismissed without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2008 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2