Opinion
Case: 1:16-cv-02093
10-14-2016
ALEXANDER BALLARD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
(F-Deck)
Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 10/21/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil Jury Demand MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and his pro se complaint. It appears that plaintiff currently is detained at St. Elizabeth's Hospital for a competency examination by order of The Hon. Florence Y Pan, Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Generally, plaintiff challenges his pre-trial detention and objects to the treatment he is receiving. Among other relief, plaintiff demands monetary damages, release from custody, and dismissal of the criminal charges against him.
"[A] federal court may dismiss an action when there is a direct conflict between the exercise of federal and state jurisdiction and considerations of comity and federalism dictate that the federal court should defer to the state proceedings." Hoai v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co., Inc., 866 F.2d 1515, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971)). This is such an action. See Miranda v. Gonzales, 173 F. App'x 840 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam) ("It is well-settled . . . that a court will not act to restrain a criminal prosecution if the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief." ) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 889 (2006); see Smith v. Holder, No. 14-131, 2014 WL 414292, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 30. 2014), aff'd, 561 F. App'x 12 (D.C. Cir. June 16, 2014) (per curiam) (noting appellant's failure to "show[] that the district court erred in dismissing his challenge to pending District of Columbia criminal proceedings under the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris").
Given "the fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal prosecutions" Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, the Court will dismiss this action. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: 10/14/2016
/s/_________
United States District Judge