Opinion
CIV-18-1042-F
12-12-2018
OLER ADAMS, JR., Plaintiff, v. FRED SMITH, et. al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, a state pre-trial detainee appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's action be dismissed.
I. Screening of Prisoner Complaints
A federal district court must review complaints filed by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). After conducting an initial review, the court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it presenting claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
In conducting this review, the reviewing court must accept the plaintiff's allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from the allegations, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). Although a pro se litigant's pleadings are liberally construed, Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), "[t]he burden is on the plaintiff to frame a 'complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest' that he or she is entitled to relief." Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247-48 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). The allegations in a complaint must present "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Further, a claim is frivolous "where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact" or is "based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 327 (1989).
II. Analysis
In Plaintiff's Complaint, he purports to assert Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims against Defendants Fred Smith, District Attorney, and Emmit Tayloe, District Court Judge. Doc. No. 1 ("Comp.") at 4, 6, 7. His claims arise from his arrest on August 31, 2018, and subsequent detention. Id. at 7-8. Plaintiff complains that in spite of being detained since August 2018, he has not yet been charged or provided a hearing. Id.
A review of state records reveals the possibility of multiple criminal charges currently pending against Plaintiff. Thus, the undersigned cannot ascertain specifically which criminal case may have resulted in the underlying arrest that provides the subject of this lawsuit. However, in a letter Plaintiff submitted to this Court on December 10, 2018, Plaintiff states that the charge underlying his current detention is Grand Larceny based on an event that occurred in 2016. Doc. No. 20 at 2. State records indicate that Plaintiff was charged with Grand Larceny on August 17, 2016, but was not arrested for the until 2018. See Oklahoma State Courts Network, State of Oklahoma v. Oler Adams, Jr., Comanche County District Court, Case No. CF-2016-487. The state records clearly indicate, as does Plaintiff's Complaint and additional filings, that the state criminal proceeding underlying Plaintiff's arrest is ongoing. As a result, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims as they seek relief related to ongoing criminal proceedings.
In Younger, the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts should not intervene in state criminal prosecutions begun before institution of a federal suit when the state court proceedings are: (1) ongoing, (2) offer an adequate forum for a defendant's federal claims, and (3) implicate important state interests. Id. at 43-44; see Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). "[T]he district court must abstain once the conditions are met, absent extraordinary circumstances." Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof'l Licensing of Dep't of Commerce, 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). Also, "Younger governs whenever the requested relief would interfere with the state court's ability to conduct proceedings, regardless of whether the relief targets the conduct of a proceeding directly." Joseph A. ex rel. Corrine Wolfe v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253, 1272 (10th Cir. 2002).
Exceptions exist for "bad faith or harassment," prosecution under a statute that is "flagrantly and patently" unconstitutional, or other "extraordinary circumstances" involving irreparable injury. Younger, 401 U.S. at 45-55; Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1165 (10th Cir. 1999). A petitioner has a "heavy burden" of establishing an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
Application of the relevant factors to the present case warrants dismissal of Plaintiff's claims. First, as noted, Plaintiff's criminal case is currently ongoing. See, supra. Second, the Oklahoma courts provide an adequate forum to hear Plaintiff's claims. Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (noting "ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights"). Third, Oklahoma has an important state interest in the resolution of claims raised by Plaintiff. See In re Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that "state control over criminal justice" is "a lynchpin in the unique balance of interests" of federalism). If the Court found that Defendants were unlawfully detaining Plaintiff, it could likely result in substantial disruption of the ongoing state process. See Buck v. Myers, 244 F. App'x 193, 198 (10th Cir. 2007) ("A finding in this case that the defendants violated [the plaintiff's] constitutional rights would have a preclusive effect in the state-court proceedings.").
Finally, Plaintiff's Complaint and the state record of his criminal proceedings do not suggest bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances as outlined in Younger. Thus, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction based on the Younger doctrine.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended Plaintiff's claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff is advised of the right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by January 2nd , 2019, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. The failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); cf. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) ("Issues raised for the first time in objections the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.").
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter, and any pending motion not specifically addressed herein is denied.
Dated this 12th day of December, 2018.
/s/_________
GARY M. PURCELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
http://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=comanche&number=CF-2016-487&cmid=444134