Opinion
24-3020-JWL
02-22-2024
DUSTY RAY CHAFFIN, Plaintiff, v. RENO COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MENTAL HEALTH, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Dusty Ray Chaffin is hereby required to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why this action should not be dismissed due to the deficiencies in Plaintiff's Complaint that are discussed herein.
I. Nature of the Matter before the Court
Plaintiff brings this pro se civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff is in custody at the Reno County Correctional Facility in Hutchinson, Kansas (“RCCF”). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee.
Plaintiff alleges that he was ordered to Larned for a competency evaluation after a RCCF Mental Health counselor lied. (Doc. 1, at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that it has not been completed and there has been “no action still after 21 months, no further attempts held, no bond not violent offense.” Id. Plaintiff claims that Judge Gillian ordered Plaintiff to go to Larned, and Plaintiff's defense counsel refuses to file anything or relinquish Plaintiff's case. Id. at 3-4.
Plaintiff names as defendants: RCCF Mental Health; (fnu) Gillion, Judge; and Jesse Landes, Reno County Public Defender. Plaintiff appears to seek injunctive relief in the form of “due process.” Id. at 6.
Online records show that the judge assigned to Plaintiff's state criminal case in Reno County District Court is Judge Daniel Gilligan.
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or an employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if a plaintiff has raised claims that are legally frivolous or malicious, that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2).
“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted); Northington v. Jackson, 973 F.2d 1518, 1523 (10th Cir. 1992). A court liberally construes a pro se complaint and applies “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In addition, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true. Anderson v. Blake, 469 F.3d 910, 913 (10th Cir. 2006). On the other hand, “when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief,” dismissal is appropriate. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
A pro se litigant's “conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be based.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitlement to relief' requires “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). The complaint's “factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” and “to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 555, 570.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has explained “that, to state a claim in federal court, a complaint must explain what each defendant did to [the pro se plaintiff]; when the defendant did it; how the defendant's action harmed [the plaintiff]; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158, 1163 (10th Cir. 2007). The court “will not supply additional factual allegations to round out a plaintiff's complaint or construct a legal theory on a plaintiff's behalf.” Whitney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173-74 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
The Tenth Circuit has pointed out that the Supreme Court's decisions in Twombly and Erickson gave rise to a new standard of review for § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) dismissals. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted); see also Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009). As a result, courts “look to the specific allegations in the complaint to determine whether they plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Kay, 500 F.3d at 1218 (citation omitted). Under this new standard, “a plaintiff must ‘nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.'” Smith, 561 F.3d at 1098 (citation omitted). “Plausible” in this context does not mean “likely to be true,” but rather refers “to the scope of the allegations in a complaint: if they are so general that they encompass a wide swath of conduct, much of it innocent,” then the plaintiff has not “nudged [his] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (citing Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974).
III. DISCUSSION
1. Younger Abstention
Plaintiff's claims relate to his state criminal proceedings in Reno County, Kansas. See State v. Chaffin, Case No. 2022-CR-353, filed May 27, 2022 (District Court of Reno County, Kansas). The online docket shows that the case is pending. Defense counsel filed a motion to determine competency on September 21, 2022; the judge entered an order on September 23, 2022, ordering Horizon's Mental Health Center to conduct a competency evaluation at RCCF; a Competency Hearing was held on January 13, 2023; and an Order for Treatment and Competency Evaluation was entered on January 17, 2023. Id.
The Court may be prohibited from hearing Plaintiff's claims regarding his state court proceedings under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). “The Younger doctrine requires a federal court to abstain from hearing a case where . . . (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) [that] implicate an important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues.” Buck v. Myers, 244 Fed.Appx. 193, 197 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (citing Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). “Once these three conditions are met, Younger abstention is non-discretionary and, absent extraordinary circumstances, a district court is required to abstain.” Buck, 244 Fed.Appx. at 197 (citing Crown Point I, LLC v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003)).
Online records show that Plaintiff's criminal proceedings are ongoing. Therefore, it appears that the first and second conditions for Younger abstention would be met because Kansas undoubtedly has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws through criminal proceedings in the state's courts. In re Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[S]tate control over criminal justice [is] a lynchpin in the unique balance of interests” described as “Our Federalism.”) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44). Likewise, the third condition would be met because Kansas courts provide Plaintiff with an adequate forum to litigate his constitutional claims by way of pretrial proceedings, trial, and direct appeal after conviction and sentence, as well as post-conviction remedies. See Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 n.2 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[F]ederal courts should abstain from the exercise of . . . jurisdiction if the issues raised . . . may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other [available] state procedures.”) (quotation omitted); see Robb v. Connolly, 111 U.S. 624, 637 (1984) (state courts have obligation ‘to guard, enforce, and protect every right granted or secured by the constitution of the United States . . . .'”); Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 460-61 (1974) (pendant state proceeding, in all but unusual cases, would provide federal plaintiff with necessary vehicle for vindicating constitutional rights).
In Hodson v. Reams, the petitioner argued that the rescheduling of his competency hearing was done in bad faith, that the judge was acting in bad faith because he barred all pro se motions filed by petitioner, that his counsel acted wantonly and recklessly, that he was unable to exhaust his administrative remedies because he is barred by the state district court from filing pro se motions, and that the public defender violated his due process rights by failing to request competency from the date of the offense. Hodson v. Reams, Civil Action No. 17-cv-00379-GPG, 2017 WL 6550694, at *1 (D. Colo. June 20, 2017), denying cert. of appealability 729 Fed.Appx. 661 (10th Cir. 2018). The court found that petitioner failed to establish that the state criminal proceeding was an inadequate forum to hear his claims, and that the State has an important interest in the administration of its criminal code, as well as the state competency procedures set forth in the state statutes. Id. at *2.
To the extent Plaintiff alleges excessive bond in his criminal case, the Court would also be prohibited from hearing Plaintiff's claim under Younger. Plaintiff's claim of excessive bond is insufficient to trigger any of the Younger exceptions, and if his claim is construed as a petition for habeas corpus, Plaintiff fares no better. A prisoner proceeding pretrial under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must first exhaust available state court remedies. The Younger doctrine prevents a court proceeding in habeas from intervening in a pending state court criminal matter unless exceptional circumstances are present.
In Arter v. Gentry, the Tenth Circuit upheld a district court decision construing a pretrial detainee's claim of excessive bail as a claim under § 2241 and denying habeas relief for failure to exhaust state court remedies and noting that the Younger abstention doctrine, “compels us to avoid interference in ongoing state proceedings when the state courts provide an adequate forum to present any federal constitutional challenges.” Arter v. Gentry, 201 Fed.Appx. 653, 653-54 (10th Cir. 2006) (unpublished). And in Tucker v. Reeve, a state pretrial detainee challenged his pretrial detention, alleging state officials set excessive bond, denied him a speedy trial, and engaged in illegal searches and seizures. Tucker v. Reeve, 601 Fed.Appx. 760 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished). The Tenth Circuit upheld the district court's application of the Younger abstention doctrine. Id. at 760-61; see also Albright v. Raemisch, 601 Fed.Appx. 656, 659-60 (10th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (dismissing § 2241 petition challenging, inter alia, violation of rights against excessive bond, for failure to exhaust state court remedies).
Plaintiff should show good cause why the Court should not abstain from hearing his claims regarding his state court proceedings in the District Court of Reno County, Kansas.
2. Defendants
A. State Court Judge
Plaintiff names the state court judge presiding over his criminal case as a defendant. State court judges are entitled to personal immunity. “Personal immunities . . . are immunities derived from common law which attach to certain governmental officials in order that they not be inhibited from ‘proper performance of their duties.'” Russ v. Uppah, 972 F.2d 300, 302-03 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 223, 225 (1988)).
Plaintiff's claims against the state court judge should be dismissed on the basis of judicial immunity. A state judge is absolutely immune from § 1983 liability except when the judge acts “in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.” Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356-57 (1978) (articulating broad immunity rule that a “judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority ”); Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1266 (10th Cir. 1994). Only actions taken outside a judge's judicial capacity will deprive the judge of judicial immunity. Stump, 435 U.S. at 356-57. Plaintiff alleges no facts whatsoever to suggest that the defendant judge acted outside of his judicial capacity.
B. Defense Counsel
Plaintiff has not shown that his state court defense attorney was acting under color of state law as required under § 1983. See Polk Cty. v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 318-19, 321-23 (1981) (assigned public defender is ordinarily not considered a state actor because their conduct as legal advocates is controlled by professional standards independent of the administrative direction of a supervisor); see also Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 91 (2009); Dunn v. Harper County, 520 Fed.Appx. 723, 725-26, 2013 WL 1363797 at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013) (“[I]t is well established that neither private attorneys nor public defenders act under color of state law for purposes of § 1983 when performing traditional functions as counsel to a criminal defendant.” (citations omitted)). A criminal defense attorney does not act under color of state law even when the representation was inadequate. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 330 n.6 (1983). Plaintiff's claims against his defense attorney are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim.
C. RCCF Mental Health
Plaintiff names RCCF Mental Health as a defendant. It appears that his claims involve a health provider at the RCCF, the facility where he is in custody. He only mentions it in the body of his Complaint by claiming that he was ordered to Larned for a competency evaluation after a RCCF Mental Health counselor lied. Plaintiff has not named an individual health care provider from RCCF.
An essential element of a civil rights claim against an individual is that person's direct personal participation in the acts or inactions upon which the complaint is based. Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 165-66 (1985); Henry v. Storey, 658 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10th Cir. 2011) (“But § 1983 imposes liability for a defendant's own actions-personal participation in the specific constitutional violation complained of is essential.”) (citing Foote v. Spiegel, 118 F.3d 1416, 1423-24 (10th Cir. 1997) (“Individual liability under § 1983 must be based on personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.”) (citation omitted)); Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1228 (10th Cir. 2006) (“In order for liability to arise under § 1983, a defendant's direct personal responsibility for the claimed deprivation . . . must be established.”) (emphasis added) (citation omitted)). Conclusory allegations of involvement are not sufficient. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676 (2009) (“Because vicarious liability is inapplicable to . . . § 1983 suits, a plaintiff must plead that each Government-official defendant, through the official's own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.”). As a result, a plaintiff is required to name each defendant not only in the caption of the complaint, but again in the body of the complaint and to include in the body a description of the acts taken by each defendant that violated plaintiff's federal constitutional rights.
Mere supervisory status is insufficient to create personal liability. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1239 (10th Cir. 2008) (supervisor status is not sufficient to create § 1983 liability). An official's liability may not be predicated solely upon a theory of respondeat superior. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 371 (1976); Gagan v. Norton, 35 F.3d 1473, 1476 FN4 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1183 (1995). A plaintiff alleging supervisory liability must show “(1) the defendant promulgated, created, implemented or possessed responsibility for the continued operation of a policy that (2) caused the complained of constitutional harm, and (3) acted with the state of mind required to establish the alleged constitutional deprivation.” Dodds v. Richardson, 614 F.3d 1185, 1199 (10th Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 563 U.S. 960 (2011). “[T]he factors necessary to establish a [supervisor's] § 1983 violation depend upon the constitutional provision at issue, including the state of mind required to establish a violation of that provision.” Id. at 1204 (citing Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949). Plaintiff's claims against RCCF Mental Health are subject to dismissal.
IV. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis
Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). Plaintiff has paid the filing fee in this case. Therefore, his motion is denied as moot.
V. Response Required
Plaintiff is required to show good cause why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein. Failure to respond by the Court's deadline may result in dismissal of this case without further notice.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until March 22, 2024, in which to show good cause, in writing to the undersigned, why Plaintiff's Complaint should not be dismissed for the reasons stated herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED.