Tucker v. Reeve , 601 F. App'x 760 ( 2015 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 5, 2015
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
DAVID LEWIS TUCKER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v. No. 14-6213
(D.C. No. 5:14-CV-00971-R)
ROGER REEVE, Washita County Sheriff, (W.D. Okla.)
Respondent – Appellee.
_________________________________
ORDER DENYING COA*
_________________________________
Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
Petitioner David Lewis Tucker, a state detainee proceeding pro se, filed a
28 U.S.C. § 2241 action in district court to challenge his pretrial detention in Washita
County Jail, Oklahoma, where he awaits trial for burglary. He alleges state officials
set excessive bond, denied him a speedy trial, and engaged in illegal searches and
prosecution. Petitioner asked the district court to sanction the district attorney
assigned to his case for malicious prosecution, and to order the dismissal of his case
and his immediate release. The district court denied Petitioner’s request, and
Petitioner sought a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s decision.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the
case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
The district court, in denying Petitioner’s claims, cited the Younger abstention
doctrine, which “dictates that federal courts not interfere with state court proceedings . . .
when such relief could adequately be sought before the state court.” Rienhardt v. Kelly,
164 F.3d 1296, 1302 (10th Cir. 1999). In determining whether Younger abstention is
appropriate, federal courts consider whether: (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. Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997). The district court
found each of Petitioner’s claims could be adequately heard in the ongoing state case and
the state of Oklahoma has an important interest in prosecuting criminal cases without
interference from federal courts. The district court further found Petitioner met none of
the narrow exceptions to the Younger abstention doctrine. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 59
F.3d 1058, 1065 (10th Cir. 1995).
After carefully reviewing Petitioner’s filings and the record on appeal, we find
the district court’s detailed application of the Younger abstention doctrine to
Petitioner’s case to be compelling. We therefore conclude that reasonable jurists
would not debate whether the district court erred in its decision to deny Petitioner’s
28 U.S.C. § 2241 action. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We
-2-
accordingly DENY Petitioner’s request for a COA and DISMISS his appeal.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-3-