Herships v. State of California Superior Court

Background

Howard Herships, a self-represented plaintiff, asked for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. He sought to prevent the Appellate Division of the California Superior Court for Santa Clara County from holding oral argument in his pending criminal appeal. He also sought an order preventing his court-appointed attorney, William Safford, from stopping him from raising certain issues during the argument. The argument was scheduled for November 18, 2022.

Court’s reasoning

The court applied the Younger abstention principle. Abstention means that a federal court declines to interfere with certain state-court proceedings. Under this principle, federal courts generally must not grant injunctive or declaratory relief that interferes with ongoing state criminal proceedings, absent extraordinary circumstances. The court explained that this principle applies while a state criminal appeal is pending and requires state appellate review to be completed before federal intervention.

The court found that the relevant conditions were satisfied: Herships’s direct criminal appeal was pending; the state had important interests in administering its criminal-justice system; Herships was not barred from presenting federal constitutional claims in state court; and his requested relief would directly interfere with the state proceeding. The court also concluded that Herships’s dissatisfaction with Safford did not justify federal intervention. Herships’s claim that the Appellate Division was biased because its judges served on a court he accused of denying disability accommodations was rejected as based on conjecture. The court also noted that the Santa Clara Superior Court’s liability was not at issue in the criminal appeal.

Disposition

The court held that abstention was appropriate and denied all requests for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The order was issued by Judge Jamey Donato.