Maxwell v. Higgins

Full title: DANIEL K MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN A HIGGINS, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 11, 2017

CASE NO. 4:17-cv-353-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2017)

Opinion

CASE NO. 4:17-cv-353-MW-GRJ

08-11-2017

DANIEL K MAXWELL, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN A HIGGINS, Defendant.

GARY R. JONES United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff initiated this case by filing a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983, and seeks appointment of counsel and leave to proceed as a pauper. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3. The Court finds that leave to proceed as a pauper should be granted for the limited purpose of dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.¹

1 Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a prisoner seeking to bring a civil action or appeal in forma pauperis shall pay the full amount of the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(b)(1). As explained infra, Plaintiff's claims sound at least in part in habeas corpus, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court will not assess the fee at this time. --------

Plaintiff is a pretrial detainee at the Wakulla County Jail. The Court may take judicial notice that Plaintiff is the defendant in a pending Wakulla County felony criminal case: State v. Maxwell, 2015 CF 213 (filed 9/9/15). The defendant named in the Complaint is Plaintiff's appointed counsel in his pending criminal case, Brian Higgins. The Complaint stems from competency proceedings that occurred during Plaintiff's criminal case which resulted in his commitment to the Florida State Hospital for a period of time. Plaintiff alleges that his counsel performed negligently during the competency proceedings. For relief, Plaintiff seeks "a speedy trial without delay" and compensatory damages in excess of $100,000. ECF No. 1.

Plaintiff's claim for monetary damages against the public defender who represents him is not cognizable. In order to prevail on a civil rights action under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that he was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law. Griffin v. City of Opa-Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir.2001). "[T]he under-color-of-state-law element of § 1983 excludes from its reach merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or wrongful." Focus on the Family v. Pinellas Suncoast Transit Auth., 344 F.3d 1263, 1277 (11th Cir.2003) (citation and quotation marks omitted). "[A] public defender does not act under color of state law when performing a lawyer's traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding." Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981).

To the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in connection with his pending prosecution, federal courts will not interfere with pending state criminal proceedings absent very narrow circumstances, pursuant to the Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine. 401 U.S. 37 (1971). "Under Younger v. Harris and its progeny, federal district courts must refrain from enjoining pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances." Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis Trucking Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11^th Cir. 1997). "The policy of equitable restraint expressed in [Younger] . . . is founded on the premise that ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights." Hughes v. Att'y Gen. of Florida, 377 F.3d 1258, 1264 n. 7 (11^th Cir. 2004). The exceptions to Younger are very narrow and apply only if: there is evidence of state proceedings motivated by bad faith, irreparable injury would occur, or there is no adequate alternative state forum where the petitioner's constitutional issues can be raised. Id. at 1263 n.6. The allegations of the Complaint do not suggest that this case would fall within any exception to Younger.

To the extent that the Complaint may liberally be construed as alleging that counsel rendered ineffective assistance in violation of the sixth amendment during the criminal and competency proceedings, Plaintiff's claims are not properly asserted by way of a civil rights complaint. "[W]hen a prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release . . . his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). A petition seeking habeas corpus relief would be filed in this Court, after Plaintiff exhausts his available state remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed as a pauper, ECF No. 3, is GRANTED. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 2, is MOOT.

It is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case should be DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and pursuant to Younger.

IN CHAMBERS this 11^th day of August 2017.

/s/_________

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only , and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.