From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Steele v. Partington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
May 11, 2016
No. 3:16-CV-360-K (N.D. Tex. May. 11, 2016)

Opinion

No. 3:16-CV-360-K

05-11-2016

TOMMY W. STEELE, Plaintiff, v. ABE PARTINGTON AND THE WAXAHACHIE POLICE DEPT., Defendants.


FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an order of the District Court, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow: I. Background

Plaintiff is a state prisoner and has filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is proceeding pro se and the Court has granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Defendants are the Waxahachie Police Department and Waxahachie Police Officer Abe Partington.

Plaintiff states that on November 4, 2015, Officer Partington unlawfully arrested him. Plaintiff claims Officer Partington also wrote a false police report and committed perjury to unlawfully charge him with possession of a controlled substance. Plaintiff states the criminal charges are currently pending. II. Screening

Plaintiff's complaint is subject to preliminary screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That section provides in pertinent part:

The court shall review . . . as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity [and] [o]n review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit.
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) ("Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . (B) the action or appeal-(I) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit.").

Both § 1915A(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) provide for sua sponte dismissal if the Court finds that the complaint is frivolous or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). III. Discussion

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine. Under this doctrine, a federal court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction when to do so would result in the interference in the course of an ongoing state criminal proceeding except in the most extraordinary circumstances and on a clear showing of both great and immediate harm. See Burgett v. State of Texas, No. 7:04-CV-227-R, 2005 WL 473680, at *1 (N.D.Tex. Feb.28, 2005) (collecting cases); see also Younger v. Harris, 401U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971). The requirement that a plaintiff prove "extraordinary circumstances" to obtain federal relief is grounded in the principals of comity and federalism. Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.

The Younger abstention doctrine requires that federal courts decline to exercise jurisdiction over a state criminal defendant's claims when three conditions are met: "(1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the state has an important interest in regulating the subject matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges." Bice v. La. Pub. Defender Bd., 677 F.3d 712,716 (5th Cir.2012) (citing Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)) (internal citations omitted).

All prerequisites for abstention under Younger are met here. There is an ongoing state judicial criminal proceeding. (See Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Answer No. 1.) A determination by this Court that Plaintiff's arrest and prosecution are unlawful would interfere with the state criminal proceedings. Further, "[t]he state has a strong interest in enforcing its criminal laws." DeSpain v. Johnston, 731 F.2d 1171, 1176 (5th Cir.1984); see also Nobby Lobby, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 970 F.2d 82, 85 (5th Cir.1992) (explaining that, "under Younger and its companion cases, a federal district court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a suit when state criminal proceedings are currently pending against the federal plaintiff (citing Younger, 401U.S. at 41)). Finally, Plaintiff has a full opportunity to raise his constitutional challenges in the Texas state courts. See DeSpain, 731 F.2d at 1176; see also Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975) ("ordinarily a pending state prosecution provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional rights").

All three conditions of Younger are met in this matter. The Court may refuse to abstain if an exception applies, but no exception applies here. The Court should abstain from jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims. IV. Recommendation

The Court recommends that Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine.

Signed this 11 day of May, 2016.

/s/_________

PAUL D. STICKNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).


Summaries of

Steele v. Partington

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
May 11, 2016
No. 3:16-CV-360-K (N.D. Tex. May. 11, 2016)
Case details for

Steele v. Partington

Case Details

Full title:TOMMY W. STEELE, Plaintiff, v. ABE PARTINGTON AND THE WAXAHACHIE POLICE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Date published: May 11, 2016

Citations

No. 3:16-CV-360-K (N.D. Tex. May. 11, 2016)

Citing Cases

Steele v. Partington

Background Because this case is the subject of two prior opinions, see Steele v. Partington, 2017 WL 6406629…