Opinion
Civil Action 21-1252
10-13-2021
LYNNE L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY OFFICE; STEPHEN ZAPPALA, District Attorney's Office; RICHARD BYERS, Investigator for District Attorney's Office; MAGISTRATE LINDA ZURCCO; RAYMOND BITAR; EUGENE F. RIAZZI, JR., Magistrate; and ANTHONY DELUCA, Magistrate, Defendants.
Re: ECF No. 4
Maureen P. Kelly Magistrate Judge
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Arthur J. Schwab District Judge
I. RECOMMENDATION
For the reasons stated below, it is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiffs "Motion to Cease and Desist, Along with the Filing of Civil Case for Jurisdiction in Erie County, Forthwith," ECF No. 4, be treated as a motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO"). It is further recommended that this Court abstain from enjoining Plaintiffs state court criminal proceedings pursuant to the doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and the motion for TRO be denied.
II. REPORT
A. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff Lynne Thompson ("Plaintiff), a frequent litigator in this Court, commenced this pro se action on September 17, 2021 with the filing of a Complaint. ECF No. 1. While the Complaint is difficult to understand, it appears that Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of her arrest, prosecution, and bond in a pending state court criminal proceeding. It appears that the same might be related to matters asserted by Plaintiff in another of the cases that she filed in this Court. See Thompson v. Bromall No. 21-281 (W.D. Pa. filed Mar. 1, 2021). As of this date, the docket indicates that the Complaint has been served on some, but not all of the Defendants. It is unclear whether any Defendant has been served a copy of the present motion.
Presently before this Court is Plaintiffs self-styled "Motion to Cease and Desist, Along with the Filing of Civil Case for Jurisdiction in Erie County, Forthwith." ECF No. 4. As with the Complaint, the content of this motion is difficult to follow. However, it appears that Plaintiff asks this Court to enjoin an unnamed pending state criminal case against her - most likely in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Id.
A review of the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System online docket page as of September 28, 2021- shortly after the motion was filed - showed that only one criminal case involving an individual named "Lynne Thompson" was pending in Allegheny County. See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/CaseSearch. As of October 13, 2021, the docket for that case -Commonwealth v. Thompson, Docket No. MJ-05303-CR-0000276-2021 - shows that a preliminary hearing on charges of theft by deception and deceptive or fraudulent business practices took place before a state magisterial district judge on October 4, 2021, and that those same charges were held for the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County. Plaintiffs formal arraignment before the Court of Common Pleas is scheduled for November 22, 2021. This Court takes judicial notice of the state court's electronic docket.
Courts are permitted to take judicial notice of matters of public record, prior judicial opinions, and official court records. See, e.g., McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 526 (3d Cir. 2009); Carlev v. Wheeled Coach, 991 F.2d 1117, 1126 (3d Cir. 1993) (citing Gov't of Virgin Islands v. Testamark, 528 F.2d 742, 743 (3d Cir. 1976)).
B. Younger Abstention
This Court should abstain from interfering in Plaintiffs ongoing criminal proceedings pursuant to the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris. 401 U.S. 37 (1971).
The Younger abstention doctrine is based on basic considerations of comity that are fundamental to our federal system of government. As recognized by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit:
Younger abstention is a legal doctrine granting federal courts discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a claim when resolution of that claim would interfere with an ongoing state proceeding. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 41 (1971) (u[W]e have concluded that the judgment of the District Court, enjoining appellant Younger from prosecuting under these California statutes, must be reversed as a violation of the national policy forbidding federal courts to stay or enjoin pending state court proceedings except under special circumstances.").Kendall v. Russell 572 F.3d 126, 130 n.3 (3d Cir. 2009).
"The Younger doctrine . . . reflects a strong policy against federal intervention in state judicial processes in the absence of great and immediate irreparable injury to the federal plaintiff." Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (citing Samuels v. Mackell 401 U.S. 66, 69, (1971)). Younger abstention is appropriate when three requirements are satisfied. Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982) (collecting and summarizing authorities to establish a three part test). First, the federal plaintiff must be a party in an ongoing state proceeding of a judicial nature subject to interference by continued federal court action. Second, the state proceeding must implicate important state interests. Third, the federal plaintiff must have an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the state court proceedings.
The Supreme Court made clear in Younger that the injuries typically suffered by criminal defendants did not rise to the legal definition of "irreparable" in this context, and thus did not justify a federal court's intervention in a state judicial proceeding. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971) ("Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by themselves be considered 'irreparable' in the special legal sense of that term.").
Applying the three-part test to the present matter reveals that abstention under Younger is appropriate. First, Plaintiff is subject to pending criminal proceedings in Allegheny County Pennsylvania, and thus is a party to ongoing state judicial proceedings. Her charges were held over on October 4, 2021, and her formal arraignment is scheduled for November 22, 2021. Second, the state has a legitimate and important interest in conducting criminal trials, as well as in reviewing state trial court judgment for errors and correcting the same. Accord. Smithson v. Rizzo, No. 1:14-CV-1866, 2015 WL 1636143, at *14 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 7, 2015). Third, Plaintiff has an opportunity to raise her constitutional claims through pre-trial and post-trial motions in the state trial court. If convicted, she can raise her constitutional issues on appeal.
Plaintiffs underlying criminal proceedings satisfy the three part test for abstention under Younger. Additionally, she has not established the type of immediate, irreparable injury that is required to enjoin a state court criminal proceeding under that case and its progeny. Accordingly, this Court should abstain from enjoining Plaintiffs state criminal proceedings, and deny the instant motion.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons herein, it is respectfully recommended that the Plaintiffs Motion to Cease and Desist, Along with the Filing of Civil Case for Jurisdiction in Erie County, Forthwith, ECF No. 4, be treated as a motion for TRO. It is further recommended that this Court abstain from enjoining Plaintiffs state court criminal proceedings pursuant to the doctrine in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), and the motion for TRO be denied.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Local Rule 72.D.2, the parties are permitted to file written objections in accordance with the schedule established in the docket entry reflecting the filing of this Report and Recommendation. Failure to timely file objections will waive the right to appeal. Brightwell v. Lehman, 637 F.3d 187, 193 n.7 (3d Cir. 2011). Any party opposing objections may file their response to the objections within fourteen days thereafter in accordance with Local Civil Rule 72.D.2.