Opinion
4:24-CV-00603-BRW
07-24-2024
DUSTIN SHOEMAKE PLAINTIFF v. FULTON COUNTY DEFENDANT
ORDER
BILLY ROY WILSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Harrison County Adult Detention Center, filed pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set out below, Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 1) is GRANTED but the case is STAYED.
I. IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION
Pre-trial detainees who are allowed to file civil actions in forma pauperis still must pay a $350.00 filing fee. If they cannot afford to pay the filing fee in a lump sum, money is withdrawn from his prison trust fund account in monthly installments.
Based on the calculation sheet, Plaintiff's initial filing fee $8.20. Plaintiff's present custodian is directed to collect, and send to the Clerk of the Court, monthly installments equal to 20% of the preceding month's income credited to Plaintiff's prison trust account each time the amount in the account exceeds $10.00, until the $350 filing fee is fully paid. All payments should be clearly identified by the name and number assigned to this case.
The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Harrison County Adult Detention Center, 4506 Marlena Street, Unit 15, Bossier City, LA 71111.
II. YOUNGER DOCTRINE
I take judicial notice of the public records related to Plaintiff's pending, criminal state-court case in Fulton County, Arkansas. A court may raise the doctrine of abstention sua sponte.
See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (addressing federal court's ability to take judicial notice of public records).
Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 683 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.9 (8th Cir. 1982) (citing Belloti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976)).
The abstention doctrine enunciated in Younger v. Harris “directs federal courts to abstain from accepting jurisdiction in cases where equitable relief is requested and where granting such relief would interfere with pending state proceedings in such a way as to offend principles of comity and federalism.” However, because Plaintiff is seeking only “monetary compensation,” he may pursue his case after the pending charges are resolved.
Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 477 n.1 (8th Cir. 1998).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. However, this case is STAYED.
Plaintiff must either update the Court on the status of his pending state court case in six months or file a motion to lift stay if the case is resolved before then. Failure to do so may result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
IT IS SO ORDERED.