Opinion
CIV-23-602-G
09-25-2023
ERIC LEE PROCTOR, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AMANDA MAXFIELD GREEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se,has filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. 1). United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred this matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 3). As set forth fully below, the undersigned recommends that the Court DISMISS the Petition pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
A pro se litigant's pleadings are liberally construed “and held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). But the court cannot serve as Petitioner's advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).
Citations to the parties' filings and attached exhibits will refer to this Court's CM/ECF pagination.
I. Screening
Federal law mandates the screening of each complaint in a civil action filed by a prisoner seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id.
In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept Plaintiff's allegations as true and construe them, and any reasonable inferences to be drawn from them, in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir. 2007). The court must determine “whether the complaint includes enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Bare legal conclusions in a complaint are not assumed to be true; legal conclusions “must be supported by factual allegations” to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009).
II. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff is a state inmate currently confined at the James Crabtree Correctional Center in Helena, Oklahoma. (Doc 1, at 2); see also OK DOC# 229618, Oklahoma Department of Corrections OK Offender, https://okoffender.doc.ok.gov/ (last visited Sept. 25, 2023). In September 1994, Plaintiff was convicted following a jury trial of three counts of Forcible Sodomy, one count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon, and one count of Rape in the First Degree. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A.He was sentenced to 250 years of imprisonment on the rape charge and 20 years on each of the remaining charges, to be served consecutively. See OK DOC# 229618, Oklahoma Department of Corrections OK Offender. Upon direct appeal, all counts of Forcible Sodomy and Rape in the First Degree were affirmed, and the count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon was reversed and remanded. See Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Case No. F-1994-1184. The count of Assault with a Deadly Weapon was then dismissed by the state district court on May 23, 1996. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A, supra note 3. The state court has denied each of Plaintiff's previous collateral attacks on the remaining convictions. See id.
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=grady&number=CF-1994-00078A&cmid=25115 (Docket Sheet) (last visited Sept. 25, 2023). The undersigned takes judicial notice of the docket sheets and related documents in Plaintiff's state criminal proceedings. See United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1214 n.6 (10th Cir. 2009) (exercising discretion “to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in [this] court and certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand”) (citation omitted).
https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=appellate&number=F-1994-1184&cmid=31460 (Docket Sheet) (last visited Sept. 25, 2023).
On April 11, 2023, Plaintiff filed with Grady County District Court a “Notice of Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights & Universal Affidavit of Truth,” which remains pending before the state district court. See id. Plaintiff named the State of Oklahoma and the United States of America as Defendants, (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1, at 1), and stated the following causes of action, presumably against both Defendants:
• Claim One: “The Court Violated the Legal and Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff and did not Proceed with the Plaintiff's Case Under Juvenile Laws,” arguing that Plaintiff should have been tried as a juvenile since he was sixteen years old at the time of the alleged offenses and that his consecutive sentences are the functional equivalent of life without parole, an unconstitutional sentence under Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1, at 7-13).
• Claim Two: “The Court Committed Judicial Misconduct and Failed to give Access to an Attorney,” arguing that Plaintiff's court-appointed attorney was “not familiar with the case.” (Id. at 13-14).
• Claim Three: “The Court Failed to Consider the Necessary Evidence of the Case,” arguing that a DNA report, rape kit, and test strip were not submitted in the state district court. (Id. at 14-15).
• Claim Four: “The Court abused the Due Process Rights of Plaintiff,” arguing that “Plaintiff did not get a fair and equal opportunity to defend the allegations.” (Id. at 15-16).
• Claim Five: “The Court Committed Intentional Tort to Plaintiff,” arguing that “due to the intentional act and judicial misconduct of the trial court, Plaintiff faced severe emotional distress and problems in mental health.” (Id. at 16-18).
• Claim Six: “The Court Violated the Double Jeopardy Clause,” arguing that “[t]he court charged with Forcible Sodomy 21-888 B3 and granted 20 years imprisonment three times.” (Id. at 18-19).
• Claim Seven: “The Court Violated Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” arguing that the state district court discriminated against Plaintiff and “did not provide the opportunity for the Plaintiff to defend his case.” (Id. at 19-20).
• Claim Eight: “The Investigation Officers, District Attorney, & Judge of the Plaintiff's case Committed Gross Negligence.” (Id. at 20-21).
• Claim Nine: “The State's argument to the district court, adopted in its entirety by the district court, that Plaintiff's possible eligibility for parole at the age of 68 constitutes a meaningful opportunity for release,” arguing that the Oklahoma parole procedure does not allow him a “meaningful” or “realistic” opportunity for release, as he is not eligible for parole until he is sixty-eight years old. (Id. at 21-27).
On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Civil Rights Complaint with this Court, naming Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, and Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond as defendants. Proctor v. Stitt, W.D. Okla. Case No. CV-23-141-G, Doc. 1, at 1. In Claim One, Plaintiff argued that the “mandatory consideration as an adult is in contravention of U.S. Supreme Court precedents regarding juvenile justice,” violating the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 2. In Claim Two, Plaintiff stated that the defendants had violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by failing to “consider the attendant characteristics of youth and to provide Petitioner with a meaningful opportunity for release.” Id. at 3.
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights, naming as defendants Grady County Oklahoma Court, the State of Oklahoma, and the United States of America. (Doc 1, at 1-2, 11). In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff claims that “[t]he Court Violated the Legal and Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff and did not proceed with the Plaintiff's case Under Juvenile laws,” and “[t]he Court Committed Judicial Misconduct and Failed to give Access to an attorney.” (Id.) Additionally, Plaintiff has attached to the Complaint the aforementioned Notice of Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights & Universal Affidavit of Truth that he filed with the Grady County District Court. (Doc. 1, at Ex. 1). Plaintiff's requested relief is for this Court to “thoroughly investigate this matter, considering both the civil and criminal dimensions of the case” and “take appropriate actions to correct the unjust sentencing and secure his release.” (Doc. 1, at 5).
III. The Court Should Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to the Younger Abstention Doctrine.
Under the Younger abstention doctrine, federal courts are to abstain from exercising jurisdiction to interfere with state proceedings when the following three requirements are met:
(1) There is an ongoing state criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding, (2) the state court provides an adequate forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and (3) the state proceedings involve important state interests, matters which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or implicate separately articulated state policies.Winn v. Cook, 945 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2019) (citing Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749 (10th Cir. 2006)).Additionally, “Younger governs whenever the requested relief would interfere with the state court's ability to conduct proceedings, regardless of whether the relief targets the conduct of a proceeding directly.” Joseph A. ex rel. Corrine Wolfe v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253, 1272 (10th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Exceptions exist for “bad faith or harassment,” prosecution under a statute that is “flagrantly and patently” unconstitutional, or other “extraordinary circumstances” involving irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 50-54 (1971) (quotations omitted); Amanatullah v. Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1165 (10th Cir. 1999). However, Petitioner has a “heavy burden” of establishing an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine. Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted).
“Younger abstention is jurisdictional.” D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2004). “[A] court may raise the issue of abstention sua sponte.” D.A. Osguthorpe Family P'ship v. ASC Utah, Inc., 705 F.3d 1223, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Sanchez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 307 Fed.Appx. 155, 157 (10th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that both Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit precedent “have acknowledged the authority of a federal court to address application of the Younger doctrine sua sponte”).
The Court should conclude that abstention is appropriate in this matter. First, Plaintiff's complaint filed in Grady County District Court remains pending. See Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A, supra note 3. In Plaintiff's state court complaint, he makes the same claims as in the instant Complaint, going so far as to attach the former to the latter in filing this action. (See Doc. 1, at 4; id. at Ex. 1). The state district court has not yet addressed Plaintiff's complaint but may construe it as an application for post-conviction relief, as Plaintiff filed the complaint in his criminal proceeding, and in it he challenges the validity of his conviction and sentence. See id.; Grady County District Court, Case No. CF-1994-78A, supra note 3. A pending collateral attack in a criminal case makes the criminal proceeding “ongoing,” satisfying the first prong of Younger. See Carbajal v. Hotsenpiller, 524 Fed.Appx. 425, 428 (10th Cir. 2013).
Second, an Oklahoma state court is an adequate forum to hear federal civil rights claims. See Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) (noting “ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights”). Plaintiff has failed to show that an Oklahoma state court is not an adequate forum to hear Plaintiff's causes of action. Indeed, Plaintiff has asserted his claims to the Grady County District Court.
Third, Oklahoma has an important state interest in the resolution of the claims raised by Plaintiff. See In re Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007) (recognizing “state control over criminal justice” is “a lynchpin in the unique balance of interests” of federalism). Certainly any decision of this Court relating to the prosecution, sentencing, or parole of Plaintiff would interfere with the state's firmly established interest in conducting its own judicial proceedings and prosecuting crimes in its jurisdiction. See Fisher v. Whetsel, 142 Fed.Appx. 337, 339 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Oklahoma's important interest in enforcing its criminal laws through proceedings in its state courts remains axiomatic.”); Wilson v. Morrissey, 527 Fed.Appx. 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2013) (“We have long recognized that the prosecution of crimes occurring within its jurisdiction is an important state interest”).
Since the three Younger requirements are satisfied, abstention is warranted absent an applicable exception. In determining whether a prosecution was initiated in bad faith or to harass, courts consider the following factors:
(1) whether it was frivolous or undertaken with no reasonably objective hope of success; (2) whether it was motivated by the defendant's suspect class or in retaliation for the defendant's exercise of constitutional rights; and (3) whether it was conducted in such a way as to constitute harassment and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, typically through the unjustified and oppressive use of multiple prosecutions.Phelps v. Hamilton, 59 F.3d 1058, 1065 (10th Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). Plaintiff alleges no facts to support any of the factors relevant to prosecution commenced in bad faith or to harass, nor does Plaintiff allege any extraordinary circumstances involving irreparable injury, precluding these exceptions.
Lastly, though Plaintiff asserts that his conviction and sentencing were unconstitutional, he fails to allege that the statutory scheme under which he was convicted was “flagrantly” or “patently” unconstitutional. To act as a Younger exception, a state statute must be “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it.” Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U.S. 434, 447 (1977) (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54). Alleging unconstitutionality in the application of a statutory scheme and prosecution of offenses in one's own case, as Plaintiff does in the Complaint, does not meet the high bar necessary to bypass Younger. Gauntlett v. Cunningham, 171 Fed.Appx. 711, 714 (10th Cir. 2006) (holding that arguing the unconstitutionality of a statute of limitations period as applied “in [one's] unique circumstances” does not suggest a constitutional violation meeting the Younger exception standard). Thus, no Younger exception applies to Plaintiff's claims.
In sum, Younger requires the Court to abstain while Plaintiff's claims are pending in state court, and Plaintiff has not met the heavy burden to show otherwise.
IV. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object.
For these reasons, it is recommended that the Complaint (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED without prejudice to the re-filing. Plaintiff is advised of the right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court by October 16, 2023, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. Plaintiff is further advised that failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge and terminates the referral unless and until the matter is re-referred.