Summary
In Carter v. Chief of Police, 468 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1972), the 5th Circuit dismissed an action by an individual seeking an injunction against state court criminal prosecutions and invoking the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3).
Summary of this case from Conners v. RileyOpinion
No. 18063.
Submitted September 25, 1972.
Decided October 17, 1972.
Carl H. Carter, pro se.
Alfred M. Bitting, Mounty Holly, N. J., and Sidney W. Bookbinder, Burlington, N. J., for appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Before STALEY, VAN DUSEN and MAX ROSENN, Circuit Judges.
OPINION OF THE COURT
This is an appeal from a district court order which dismissed appellant's "petition for stay of state criminal proceedings." The appellant, Carl H. Carter, is presently incarcerated in the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania.
Appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3). He sought a stay of state criminal proceedings arising out of his arrest of February 8, 1966, for forgery, counterfeiting, and conspiracy. In addition appellant sought the suppression and return of certain property seized by state authorities at the time of his arrest. Appellant's petition, however, contained no allegation that a prosecution had been commenced or threatened against him.
The statutory period of limitations for the offenses involved here is five years. Limitations of Prosecutions, NJSA 2A:-159-2 (1971).
This is not a proper case to bring into play the Federal court's equitable jurisdiction in order to enjoin a state prosecution.
"* * * A federal lawsuit to stop a prosecution in a state court is a serious matter. And persons having no fears of state prosecution except those that are imaginary or speculative, are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs in such cases." Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 749, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); see Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 91 S.Ct. 764, 27 L.Ed.2d 688 (1971); Boyle v. Landry, 401 U.S. 77, 91 S.Ct. 758, 27 L.Ed.2d 696 (1971); Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 91 S.Ct. 674, 27 L.Ed.2d 701 (1971).
The order of the district court will be affirmed.