Opinion
No. CV 08-101-PHX-MHM (DKD).
February 19, 2008
ORDER
Plaintiff Laura L. Medley, who is confined in the Maricopa County Lower Buckeye Jail, has filed a pro se civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. The Court will dismiss the action.
I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and Filing Fee
II. Statutory Screening of Prisoner Complaints
In Forma Pauperis28 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 191528 U.S.C. § 1915 28 U.S.C. § 1915A28 U.S.C. § 1915Apro se See Lopez v. Smith 203 F.3d 11221127-29 en banc
III. Complaint
Plaintiff names Maricopa County Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio as Defendant to the Complaint. Plaintiff alleges two grounds for relief in the Complaint: (1) Article IV (e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when Defendant's deputy refused to take custody of Plaintiff during an interstate transfer after Plaintiff informed the deputy that she could not go without her medications; and (2) Article V(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the same incident. Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief.
IV. Failure to State a Claim
Pursuant to Article V(c) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 18 U.S.C. App. § 2,
If the appropriate authority shall refuse or fail to accept temporary custody of said person, or in the event that an action on the indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged is not brought to trial within the period provided in article III or article IV hereof, the appropriate court of the jurisdiction where the indictment, information, or complaint has been pending shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice, and any detainer based thereon shall cease to be of any force or effect.
Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 2, 18 U.S.C. App. 2.
Plaintiff alleges that she was being transferred to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The Court assumes that Plaintiff was being transferred for the purpose of being prosecuted on criminal charges in the Maricopa County Superior Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff must raise any claims about the propriety of her transfer in the court "where the indictment, information, or complaint has been pending," the Maricopa County Superior Court. Moreover, to the extent that Plaintiff is seeking money damages, the Court notes that such relief is not available under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers.
This Court's docket does not show any pending criminal charges against Plaintiff in this Court.
To the extent that Plaintiff raises claims under the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, she has also failed to state a claim. First, the Court notes that Plaintiff has alleged no adverse affects on her criminal proceedings as a result of Defendant's failure to accept custody of her on the date in question. Plaintiff affirmatively alleges that she was transported to the custody of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office approximately 10 days after the date in question, and Plaintiff does not allege facts suggesting that she was harmed by the 10-day delay.
Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to challenge the propriety of her ongoing criminal proceedings in state court, the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), prevents a federal court from directly interfering with ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. The Younger abstention doctrine bars requests for declaratory and monetary relief for constitutional injuries arising out of a plaintiff's current state criminal prosecution, Mann v. Jett, 781 F.2d 1448, 1449 (9th Cir. 1986), and applies while the case works its way through the state appellate process. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989) ("[f]or Younger purposes, the State's trial-and-appeals process is treated as a unitary system"); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 608 (1975) ("Virtually all of the evils at whichYounger is directed would inhere in federal intervention prior to completion of state appellate proceedings, just as surely as they would if such intervention occurred at or before trial.")
Additionally, this Court only has jurisdiction to adjudicate issues that are currently in controversy and thereby ripe for review. 18 Unnamed John Smith Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989). Thus, if Plaintiff's criminal proceedings have not concluded, the issue of Plaintiff's detainer and transfer would not be ripe for review.
The Court will dismiss the case and this action for failure to state a claim.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, filed with the Complaint, is granted.
(2) As required by the accompanying Order to the appropriate government agency, Plaintiff must pay the $350.00 filing fee and is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $2.00.
(3) The Complaint (Doc. #1) is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), and the Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.
(4) The Clerk of Court must make an entry on the docket stating that the dismissal for failure to state a claim counts as a "strike" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).