Erick Arevalo v. Vicki Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763

Background

Erick Arevalo arrested July 1, 2017; superior court set bail at $1.5 million (later reduced to $1 million) without findings on ability to pay or nonfinancial alternatives.
Arevalo moved in superior court for a bail hearing/reduction, asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment violations and requesting an evidentiary hearing.
Arevalo filed state habeas petitions in the California Court of Appeal and California Supreme Court; both were summarily denied.
Arevalo filed an emergency federal habeas petition; the State conceded Arevalo was entitled to relief and urged a stay so the state court could hold a constitutionally adequate bail hearing.
The district court sua sponte invoked Younger abstention and dismissed the petition despite the State’s concession; Arevalo appealed.
Ninth Circuit reversed, holding Younger did not require abstention and directing the district court to grant a conditional writ giving the state 14 days to hold a constitutionally compliant bail hearing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Younger abstention bars federal habeas review of a pretrial bail challenge	Arevalo: bail-setting claims are collateral to prosecution, require immediate federal relief; Younger does not apply	State: Younger requires abstention to avoid federal interference with ongoing state criminal proceedings	Court: Younger does not apply because bail claim is distinct from the prosecution and will not interfere with it; abstention improperly invoked
Whether irreparable-harm exception to Younger applies	Arevalo: detention without a constitutionally adequate bail hearing causes irreparable liberty deprivation warranting exception	State: exception is limited (argues it’s essentially Double Jeopardy–type) and state forum exists	Court: irreparable-harm exception applies; deprivation of liberty is irreparable and full vindication requires pretrial intervention
Whether Arevalo exhausted state remedies before seeking federal habeas	Arevalo: pursued superior court motions and state habeas petitions to appellate and supreme courts	State: contends subsequent California authority (Humphrey) might offer relief	Court: exhaustion satisfied as of the date the federal action was filed; Humphrey did not create a new procedural remedy
Appropriate federal remedy given State’s concession	Arevalo: seek immediate release or constitutionally adequate hearing	State: asks the federal grant be stayed to permit a state hearing	Court: grant conditional writ stayed 14 days to allow the superior court to conduct a new constitutionally compliant bail hearing

Key Cases Cited

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (establishes federal-court abstention doctrine to avoid interference with ongoing state proceedings)
Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975) (pretrial detention/bail challenges are collateral to prosecution and may be addressed without halting trial)
Stack v. Boyle, 342 U.S. 1 (1951) (excessive bail claims are reviewable independently of the trial)
Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484 (1973) (distinguishing exhaustion rules where claim is collateral to prosecution)
Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (bad-faith or extraordinary circumstances defeat Younger abstention)
Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327 (1977) (addressing adequacy of state procedures under Younger analysis)
Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979) (fact-specific treatment of irreparable-harm considerations in Younger context)
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013) (federal courts’ duty to hear cases; Younger is narrow exception)
ReadyLink Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2014) (sets Younger four-factor framework)
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Committee v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (Younger rooted in equity, comity, federalism)
World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1987) (irreparable-harm exception to abstention for extraordinary circumstances)
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (critical date for Younger analysis is federal filing date)
Mannes v. Gillespie, 967 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1992) (full vindication of rights may require pretrial federal intervention)
Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543 (6th Cir. 1981) (bail-right claims are collateral and independent of prosecution)
Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (deprivation of constitutional rights constitutes irreparable injury)
Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2017) (liberty deprivation is irreparable harm in Younger analysis)