FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY ELL SHEHEE, aka Gregory No. 09-56130
Shehee,
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-06480-FMC-E
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LEROY BACA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Florence-Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 8, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, GOULD, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Gregory Shehee appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing
his application for habeas relief pursuant to the abstention principles established in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
§ 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir.
2013), we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Petitioner’s application for habeas
relief. Younger abstention generally is appropriate when "(1) there are ongoing
state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests,
and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal
questions." Dubinka v. Judges of Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, a petitioner seeks to adjudicate
in federal court the merits of a speedy trial claim before the state-court proceeding
concludes, Younger abstention is proper "unless the petitioner [can] show that
‘special circumstances’ warrant[] federal intervention." Carden v. Montana, 626
F.2d 82, 83 (9th Cir. 1980). At the time the district court dismissed Petitioner’s
application, his state commitment proceedings remained ongoing. No "special
circumstances" existed to warrant departure from the Younger rule.
AFFIRMED.
2