Opinion
CIV-21-121-SLP
06-14-2021
AARON DAVID WALDON, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et. al., Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
GARY M. PURCELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Petitioner, a state pre-trial detainee appearing pro se, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and the undersigned has undertaken a preliminary review of the sufficiency of the Petition pursuant to Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. For the following reasons, it is recommended the Petition be dismissed without prejudice.
Rule 4 is applied in the discretion of the undersigned to this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas Petition. Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
I. Background
Petitioner is currently confined at the Oklahoma County Detention Center (“OCDC”) located in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Doc. No. 1 (“Pet.”). Near the inception of his criminal proceedings, the state court set Petitioner's bond at $25, 000.00 and Petitioner was able to post bond and be released. Id. at 6. Following his release, Petitioner appeared at nine court appearances. Id. During this time according to Petitioner, he retained private defense counsel, Anthony Coleman, on the advice and request of District Attorney David Prater. Id. at 6-7, 8.
On December 3, 2019, Mr. Coleman received a text message from an unknown number at 11:08 p.m. stating that Mr. Coleman should call the sender if he did not want to be caught off guard in court the next day. Id. Mr. Coleman opted not to contact the person because he did not know the sender's identity or the nature of the alleged information they would share, and he had a number of cases set for court the following day, including a hearing in Petitioner's case. Id. at 7. During that hearing, Ms. Collins advised the court that the District Attorney's Office had received a call from someone stating that Petitioner was a flight risk. Id. at 6. In Oklahoma County District Judge Heather Coyle's chambers, along with Mr. Prater and Ms. Collins, Mr. Coleman responded to the text message sender asking the person to call him. Id. at 7. When the person called, Mr. Coleman placed him on speaker phone. Id. Judge Coyle increased Petitioner's bond from $25, 000.00 to $300, 000.00. Id. at 5.
On December 17, 2019, the state court held a hearing on Petitioner's request for a bond reduction. Id. at 5-6. Investigator Darren Gordon seized Petitioner's vehicle, and also seized Petitioner's cell phone during the hearing. Id. The court denied Petitioner's request for bond reduction. Id.
Petitioner also complains of his conditions of confinement within OCDC. Specifically, he asserts that while confined there he has been sexually harassed and extorted by a cellmate, physically assaulted by a fellow inmate, confined in small spaces and unable to socially distance as a COVID-19 precaution, exposed to black mold, and deprived of adequate showers, recreation, and medical treatment. Id. at 7-8.
Relying on the above allegations, Petitioner contends his rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments have been violated due to unlawful search and seizure, ineffective assistance of counsel, and prosecutorial misconduct, respectively. He requests this Court issue injunctive relief directing his immediate release from state custody. Id. at 9.
Petitioner previously filed an action in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting civil rights claims based upon similar allegations as those contained herein. Waldon v. Maughn, No. CIV-20-412-JD. On July 15, 2020, the undersigned recommended dismissal of that action. Report and Recommendation, Waldon v. Maughn, No. CIV-20-412 (W.D. Okla. July 15, 2020), Doc. No. 16.
II. Screening Requirement
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is required to promptly examine a habeas petition and to summarily dismiss it “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief . . . .” Rule 4, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. “[B]efore acting on its own initiative, a court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions.” Day v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006). Petitioner has such notice by this Report and Recommendation, and he has an opportunity to present his position by filing an objection to the Report and Recommendation. Further, when raising a dispositive issue sua sponte, the district court must “assure itself that the petitioner is not significantly prejudiced . . . and determine whether the interests of justice would be better served by addressing the merits . . . .” Id. (quotations omitted); Thomas v. Ulibarri, 214 Fed.Appx. 860, 861 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007); Smith v. Dorsey, No. 93-2229, 1994 WL 396069, at *3 (10th Cir. July 29, 1994) (noting no due process concerns with the magistrate judge raising an issue sua sponte where the petitioner could “address the matter by objecting” to the report and recommendation).
III. Analysis
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal courts should not intervene in state criminal prosecutions begun before institution of a federal suit when the state court proceedings are (1) ongoing, (2) offer an adequate forum for a defendant's federal claims, and (3) implicate important state interests. Id. at 43-44; Middlesex Cty. Ethics Comm'n v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). “[T]he district court must abstain once the conditions are met, absent extraordinary circumstances.” Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational & Prof'l Licensing of Dep't of Com., 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 2001) (quotations omitted). 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, 401 U.S. at 50-54 (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) (quotations omitted).
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends the Court abstain in this case. As established, there are ongoing state proceedings regarding the criminal charges underlying this matter. Further, “Oklahoma has an important interest in enforcing its criminal laws through criminal proceedings in the state's courts.” Green v. Whetsel, 166 Fed.Appx. 375, 376 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotations omitted). Certainly the State has an interest in criminal action and related proceedings within its borders. Finally, Petitioner does not establish bad faith, harassment, or other extraordinary circumstances.
In sum, Younger requires the Court to abstain while Petitioner's criminal proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner has not met the heavy burden to show otherwise. See, cf., Carbajal v. Hotsenpiller, 524 Fed.Appx. 425, 428-29 (10th Cir. 2013) (affirming the district court's dismissal under Younger where the plaintiff's claims were the subject of a still-pending application for post-conviction relief in state court); Clark v. Lane, No. CIV-14-0185-HE, 2014 WL 3548851, at *1, 3 (W.D. Okla. July 17, 2014) (dismissing habeas claim pursuant to Younger based on the petitioner's status as a pre-trial detainee awaiting trial on underlying criminal charges).
To the extent Petitioner complains of his conditions of confinement, see Pet. at 7-8, such claims are appropriately brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, rather than a habeas action. McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115 F.3d 809, 812 (10th Cir. 1997).
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing findings, it is recommended this action be dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by March 15 th, 2021, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation would waive appellate review of the recommended ruling. Moore v. United States of America, 950 F.2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); see, cf. Marshall v. Chater, 75 F.3d 1421, 1426 (10th Cir. 1996) (“Issues raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation are deemed waived.”).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter, and any pending motion not specifically addressed herein is denied.