Duke v. Gastelo

“Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Aravelo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018).

Appellant’s federal habeas corpus petition was dismissed because the appellant was already engaged in state proceedings pursuant to California Penal Code §1172.6. The State argued that the third prong of the Younger abstention test had been fulfilled because an adequate remedy to the appellant’s claims could be addressed in state court. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). “Younger abstention is appropriate when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state interests; (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges; and (4) the requested relief seeks to enjoin or has the practical effect of enjoining the ongoing state judicial proceeding.” Aravelo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018). The Court found that because the state §1172.6 proceeding would not address the appellant’s constitutional claims from his habeas petition, the third prong of the Younger test was not satisfied. Even with a new judgement resulting from a successful §1172.6 petition, the remedy provided would not be adequate for the purpose of a habeas petition. The Court found that the district court erred in dismissing the appellant’s habeas corpus petition because the test for Younger abstention was not satisfied. REVERSED and REMANDED.