Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-00238-LTB-GPG
05-09-2019
JAHEEM RASHON HILTS, Plaintiff, v. [NO NAMED DEFENDANTS], Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Court on the "Statement of Claims" (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (ECF No. 12). The Court has considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.
"(ECF No. ___)" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the Court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this Recommendation.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985); Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). --------
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Jaheem Rashon Hilts is in custody and is housed at the Colorado Mental Health Institute (CMHIP) at Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Hills initiated this action on January 28, 2019 by submitting, pro se, an incomplete Prisoner Complaint in which he asserts that he is suing the State of Colorado because he is "innocent of the charges holding me in jail which is unlawful imprisonment all the evidence would show innocence in my favor upon review. I want my cases reviewed 18CR1641 - 18CR2052." (ECF No. 1 at 1). Mr. Hilts also requests monetary relief. (Id. at 3). In addition, Mr. Hilts submitted an unsigned and unsupported Prisoner's Motion for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3).
In a January 29, 2019 Order, the Court reviewed Mr. Hilts filings and determined that they were deficient. (ECF No. 4). Mr. Hilts was informed that if he is challenging his detention or placement at CMHIP pursuant to a pending state court criminal proceeding, he must file an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id.). Conversely, if Mr. Hilts' claims arise from the conditions of his confinement at the CMHIP, he must file a Prisoner Complaint asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Hilts was warned that he may not file a § 2241 action and a § 1983 action in the same case. (Id.).
The Court directed Mr. Hilts to file, within 30 days of the January 29 Order: (1) a Prisoner Complaint, if pursuing relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and either pay the $400.00 filing fee, or submit a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with the supporting documentation; or, (2) an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if pursuing federal habeas corpus relief, and to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action. (Id.at 2-3). Mr. Hilts was instructed to use the court-approved forms, which he could obtain (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility's legal assistant), at www.cod.uscourts.gov. (Id.). The Court ordered Mr. Hilts to notify the Court promptly if he was unable to obtain copies of the necessary forms. (Id.). Mr. Hilts was warned that failure to cure the filing deficiencies would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.).
The Court also reminded Mr. Hilts in the January 29 Order that this Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in his pending state criminal actions absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Therefore, Mr. Hilts was directed to show cause, in writing, within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention. (ECF No. 4 at 3). Mr. Hilts was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id. at 4).
Mr. Hilts thereafter filed requests for the clerk of the court to send him copies of the forms for filing a civil rights action. (ECF Nos. 6 and 7). In a March 20 minute order, the Court directed the clerk of the court to send Mr. Hilts copies of the court-approved forms for filing a Prisoner Complaint and a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 10). Mr. Hilts was instructed to complete and submit the forms to the court within 30 days of the March 20 minute order. (Id.). The Court warned Mr. Hilts that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.). The docket entry on March 20 indicates that the forms were mailed to Mr. Hilts as ordered.
Mr. Hilts has now failed to cure the filing deficiencies or respond to the order to show cause. He has not communicated with the Court since February 22, 2019.
II. Legal Standards
A. Pro se Litigant
The Court construes Mr. Hilts' filings liberally because she is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court will not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
B. Younger abstention
The Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin or intervene in an ongoing state criminal action absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. 37; Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997). 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." Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir. 2003); see also Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
III. Analysis
Mr. Hilts has failed to cure the filing deficiencies, as directed in the January 29 Order, despite the Court having mailed him copies of the necessary forms. A litigant's failure to comply with a court order is grounds for dismissal of an action pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir. 2003) ("Although the language of Rule 41(b) requires that the defendant file a motion to dismiss, the Rule has long been interpreted to permit courts to dismiss actions sua sponte for a plaintiff's failure to prosecute or comply with the rules of civil procedure or court's orders.") (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962))). Pro se litigants are required to comply with the same court rules and procedures that govern other litigants. See McDaniel v. City and County of Denver, No. 15-302 & 15-1303, 626 F. App'x 216, 217 (10th Cir. Dec. 16, 2015) (unpublished). Therefore, the Court recommends that any claims for monetary relief asserted in this action be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for Mr. Hilts' failure to comply with the January 29 Order Directing Mr. Hilts to Cure Deficiencies.
Further, based on Mr. Hilts' allegation in the Statement of Claims (ECF No. 1) that he is asking this Court to review his pending state criminal cases because "[he is] innocent of the charges holding me in jail . . . [and] all the evidence would show innocence in my favor upon review," the Court directed Mr. Hilts to show cause why his claim was not barred by Younger abstention. Mr. Hilts was ordered to allege specific facts to show that the pending state court criminal proceedings do not offer him an adequate opportunity to litigate any federal statutory issues, see Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 431, and that extraordinary circumstances exist to justify this Court's intervention. (ECF No. 4 at 3). Mr. Hilts failed to respond to the order to show cause and, therefore, has not demonstrated that Younger abstention is inapplicable to his request that the Court review his ongoing state criminal cases. Therefore, the Court recommends that Mr. Hilt's request for review of his state criminal cases be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention.
III. Recommendation
For the reasons set forth herein, this Magistrate Judge respectfully
RECOMMENDS that the "Statement of Claims" (ECF No. 1) and this action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as follows: (1) Mr. Hilt's request for monetary relief should be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for Mr. Hilts' failure to comply with the January 29, 2019 Order; (2) Mr. Hilts request that the Court review his pending state criminal cases should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention. This Magistrate Judge
FURTHER RECOMMENDS that the pending motions be DENIED as moot.
DATED at Grand Junction, Colorado, this 9th day of May, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
Gordon P. Gallagher
United States Magistrate Judge