Hernandez v. Anderson

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CARLOS HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
TEAUNA MIRANDA, WARDEN,
Respondent.
Case No. 24-cv-01295-WHO (PR)
ORDER GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO
ABSTAIN;
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Dkt. No. 28
INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Carlos Hernandez asks for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254
from his 2020 California state convictions for murder and other crimes. Respondent seeks
dismissal under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971), on grounds that
Hernandez’s convictions were not final when he filed his federal habeas action; criminal
proceedings related to the 2020 convictions are ongoing. (Motion to Abstain, Dkt. No.
28.)
All the elements of Younger are present here: Hernandez’s sentence was reversed
on direct appeal and remanded to the superior court for possible retrial, initiating criminal
proceedings which have not yet concluded; state criminal proceedings implicate important
state interests; there are adequate opportunities for Hernandez to raise constitutional
challenges in the state proceedings; and, adjudicating the federal petition would have the
practical effect of enjoining or mooting state proceedings. Accordingly, respondent’s
motion to abstain is GRANTED, and this federal habeas action is DISMISSED without
prejudice.
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 6

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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
BACKGROUND
In 2019, Hernandez was convicted by a jury in the Santa Clara County Superior
Court of two counts of first degree murder (counts 1 and 2), possession of a firearm by a
felon (count 3), participation in a street gang (count 4), and shooting at an inhabited
dwelling (count 5). (Motion to Abstain, State Appellate Opinion, Dkt. No. 28-1 at 4, 11.)
The jury found true enhancement allegations of gang participation (counts 1-3 and 5),
firearm possession (count 3), and firearm use (counts 1, 2 and 5). (Id.) It also found true
the special circumstances of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle intentionally
inflicting death, and multiple murders. (Id.) The trial court found that Hernandez had two
prior serious felony convictions that qualified as strike priors. (Id.) In 2020, the trial court
imposed a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive
term of 115 years to life. (Id.)
In January 2023, the state appellate court, on direct review, reversed the gang
participation conviction (count 4) and the gang enhancements (counts 1-3 and 5), but
otherwise affirmed the judgment:
Hernandez’s gang participation conviction (count 4) and the true findings
on the gang enhancements are reversed. The sentence imposed following
trial is vacated. The cause is remanded to provide the People an
opportunity to retry the gang participation offense and the criminal street
gang enhancements. If the People elect not to do so, Hernandez is to be
resentenced in a manner that is consistent with this opinion and with the
terms of all applicable ameliorative legislation.
(Id. at 26.) The state supreme court denied his petition for review. (Id., California
Supreme Court Order, Dkt. No. 28-1 at 31.) The parties agree that state criminal
proceedings are ongoing in the state superior court. Hernandez contends that the
proceedings are futile and that they present no bar to this federal habeas action going
forward. (Id., Dkt. No. 28-1 at 32-77; Opp., Dkt. No. 2.)
DISCUSSION
Under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with
ongoing state criminal proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances (such as bad faith
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 6

3
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
or harassment). Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971). Younger abstention is
appropriate when (1) there is “an ongoing state judicial proceeding,” (2) those
“proceedings implicate important state interests,” and (3) there is “an adequate opportunity
in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm.
v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982). A fourth requirement has been
articulated by the Ninth Circuit: that “the federal court action would enjoin the state
proceeding or have the practical effect of doing so, i.e., would interfere with the state
proceeding in a way that Younger disapproves.” SJSVCCPAC v. City of San Jose, 546
F.3d 1087, 1092 (9th Cir. 2008). “Where Younger abstention is appropriate, a district
court cannot refuse to abstain, retain jurisdiction over the action, and render a decision on
the merits after the state proceedings have ended. To the contrary, Younger abstention
requires dismissal of the federal action.” Beltran v. State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782
(9th Cir. 1988).
Abstention is appropriate here because all Younger abstention requirements are met.
Hernandez’s state criminal proceedings are ongoing, which satisfies the first Younger
element. The reversal of Count 4 required further criminal proceedings, and Hernandez’s
final sentence remains in doubt. It was vacated in its entirety by the state appellate court in
2023: “The sentence imposed following trial is vacated.” And, “[f]inal judgment in a
criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S.
147, 156 (2007) (quoting Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211, 212 (1937)). When
Hernandez filed his federal habeas petition in 2024, there was no final judgment.1 Case
law supports the application of Younger abstention under such circumstances. Beltran v.
State of California, 871 F.2d 777, 782 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Younger abstention requires that
the federal courts abstain when state court proceedings were ongoing at the time the
federal action was filed.”); Buchanan v. Gamboa, No. 2:23-cv-2731 DJC AC P, 2024 WL
1 The lack of a final judgment also means that there is no judgment to be challenged under
section 2254. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a federal court may entertain a petition for writ of
habeas corpus “in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State
court.”).
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 6

4
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
1743024, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2024) (habeas action dismissed under Younger
because state resentencing proceedings was pending when federal action was filed); Fox v.
Clark, 21-cv-04993-JD, Dkt. No. 20 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2024) (same).
State criminal proceedings implicate important state interests for Younger purposes
under its second element. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46 (the Supreme Court has recognized
a “fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions”);
Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45) (“[T]he
States’ interest in administering their criminal justice systems free from federal
interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a court
considering equitable types of relief.”) The state’s trial, appellate and post-conviction
review process provides an opportunity for consideration of federal constitutional
questions, which satisfies Younger’s third element. “[A]bstention is appropriate unless
state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.” Moore v. Sims, 442
U.S. 415, 426 (1979).
Granting Hernandez habeas relief here in federal court — invalidating his
convictions or sentence and releasing him from confinement — would have the practical
effect of mooting or enjoining the ongoing appeal. This is exactly the sort of interference
disapproved of by Younger. SJSVCCPAC, 546 F.3d at 1092. Nothing suggests that there
are extraordinary circumstances requiring this court’s interference in state court
proceedings. Younger abstention is applicable.
Hernandez’s contentions in his opposition are unpersuasive. He calls the superior
court hearings a “red herring.” (Opp., Dkt. No. 29 at 2.) He contends that a hearing, if
held, would merely allow the state to “continue another hearing on petitioner’s 10-year
(186.22) gang enhancement. And as this honorable court is aware, petitioner is already
serving a sentence of life without parole[] (LWOP) so the entire act would be futile, if it
even occur[r]ed.” (Id.) The dispositive point is, as Hernandez admits, state criminal
proceedings are ongoing, however futile he may think them. And while, as he contends,
only Count 4 (the gang enhancement) was reversed, the state appellate court undeniably
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 6

5
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
vacated his entire sentence: “The sentence imposed following trial is vacated.”
Hernandez’s request for a stay rather than dismissal is denied. (Id. at 4.) He cites
Duke v. Gastelo, 64 F.4th 1088 (9th Cir. 2023) in support, a case discussed by respondent
in his abstention motion and his reply. In Duke, a petitioner filed a federal habeas action
after his direct appeal and state habeas proceedings had concluded, but while he still had a
pending state resentencing petition filed under California Penal Code § 1172.6. Id. at
1090. The district court denied Duke’s motion for a stay and dismissed the petition on
Younger abstention grounds. Id. The Ninth Circuit reversed on grounds that the third
Younger factor was not met here. “Duke did not seek to enjoin or interfere with the §
1172.6 state-court proceeding, and because he cannot litigate his constitutional claims in
that state-court action, the test for Younger abstention was not satisfied.” Id.
Section 1172.6 imposed a state statutory restriction on what grounds could be
raised—that is not the situation here. Duke is not applicable. Unlike the petitioner in
Duke, Hernandez’s convictions are not final and the state’s trial, appellate and post-
conviction review process provides an opportunity for consideration of federal
constitutional questions.
Respondent’s motion to abstain is granted and the petition dismissed.
CONCLUSION
Respondent’s motion to abstain is GRANTED, and this federal habeas action is
DISMISSED without prejudice. Hernandez should be aware that there is a one-year
statute of limitations for the filing of a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus, calculated
from “the date on which the judgment became final by the conclusion of direct review or
the expiration of the time for seeking such review.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(A)(1). He is
cautioned to act diligently to return to federal court with his new petition after he is
resentenced and any direct appeal from the resentencing concludes. The statute has not yet
started, of course, because the judgment in his criminal case is not yet final. See id.
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 6

6
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
United States District Court
Northern District of California
The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions, enter judgment in favor of
respondent, and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2026
_________________________
WILLIAM H. ORRICK
United States District Judge
Case 3:24-cv-01295-WHO Document 31 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 6