Tomas Sarinana, Jr. v. Alex Villanueva, 2:21-cv-07900

Petitioner Tomas Sarinana, Jr., a pretrial detainee in Los Angeles County, filed a federal habeas petition (filed under §2241 but properly construed as §2254) challenging the trial court’s August 22, 2018 suspension/revocation of his pro per (self-representation) privileges.
Criminal charge: one count of murder (Cal. Penal Code §187(a)); Petitioner waived counsel, represented himself, and sought appointment of an investigator and a separate "legal runner." The Superior Court ultimately appointed one person to serve as both roles after state-court proceedings on the matter.
Petitioner has pursued multiple state habeas petitions (Superior Court, Court of Appeal, California Supreme Court) raising the same issues; those state petitions were denied. Petitioner also filed prior federal habeas actions in this district that the court previously dismissed without prejudice while abstaining under Younger.
At filing, Petitioner’s state criminal proceedings remained pending and he remained a pretrial detainee.
The district court screened the petition under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases and concluded Younger abstention required dismissal of the petition without prejudice; the court also denied a certificate of appealability (COA).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal court may adjudicate Petitioner’s habeas petition while state criminal proceedings remain pending (Younger abstention)	Sarinana contends his federal constitutional rights were violated by suspension/revocation of his pro per privileges and seeks federal habeas relief now	Respondent argues state proceedings are ongoing and Younger requires federal courts to abstain from interfering in active state criminal prosecutions; Petitioner may raise federal claims in state courts and on appeal	Court held Younger applies: state proceedings ongoing, important state interest, Petitioner can litigate federal claims in state process, and federal relief would interfere with state prosecution — petition dismissed without prejudice
Whether a certificate of appealability should issue	Sarinana would need COA to appeal the adverse final order	Respondent opposes COA, arguing Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of a constitutional violation	Court denied a COA, finding Petitioner did not make the required substantial showing

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should not interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions absent extraordinary circumstances)
Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982) (standards for Younger abstention)
Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) (state proceedings are ongoing when appellate remedies are not exhausted)
Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536 (1976) (habeas power should sometimes be forgone to respect comity and orderly administration of criminal justice)
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (Younger abstention applies while state case is on appeal)
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce Political Action Comm. v. City of San Jose, 546 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (four-factor Younger test articulated)
Kenneally v. Lungren, 967 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1992) (application of Younger in criminal context)
World Famous Drinking Emporium, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 820 F.2d 1079 (9th Cir. 1987) (if Younger applies, federal court must dismiss the action)
Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36 (1986) (prosecution of crimes is an important state interest)
Rose v. Mitchell, 443 U.S. 545 (1979) (reinforcing state interest in criminal prosecutions)