Derrick Jackson v. State of Georgia , 273 F. App'x 812 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
APRIL 9, 2008
No. 07-15550 THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00333-CV-CAR-5
DERRICK JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF GEORGIA,
Defendant,
GREGORY L. BUSHWAY,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
_________________________
(April 9, 2008)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Derrick Jackson appeals the district court’s sua sponte dismissal
of his amended complaint seeking an injunction to halt state court criminal
proceedings. On appeal, Jackson argues that the district court erred because there
is precedent establishing that, when necessary for the protection of constitutional
rights, the federal courts have the power to issue injunctions enjoining state
prosecutions. Jackson argues that the Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct.
746 (1971), abstention doctrine does not apply because there are no legitimate
state activities at issue.
We review de novo a sua sponte dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A
for failure to state a claim, Leal v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 254 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th
Cir. 2001), and review dismissal of a complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A for abuse of discretion. Bilal v. Driver, 251 F.3d 1346, 1349 (11th Cir.
2001). In addressing whether abstention is appropriate in a given case, we review
the district court’s decision to abstain for abuse of discretion. Boyes v. Shell Oil
Prod. Co., 199 F.3d 1260, 1265 (11th Cir. 2000).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a federal court is required to dismiss a
complaint against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental
entity at any time if the court determines that the action “(1) is frivolous,
2
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 such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §
1915A.
A claim is frivolous when, on the face of the complaint, the factual
allegations are “clearly baseless,” or the legal allegations are “indisputably
meritless.” Carroll v. Gross, 984 F.2d 392, 393 (11th Cir. 1993) (citation
omitted). A complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when it
appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his
claim that would entitle him to relief. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593,
598, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1382 (1989).
Attentive to the principles of equity, comity, and federalism, the Supreme
Court has recognized that federal courts should abstain from exercising
jurisdiction in suits aimed at restraining pending state criminal prosecutions.
Younger, 401 U.S. at 41, 91 S.Ct. at 749; For Your Eyes Alone, Inc. v. City of
Columbus, Ga., 281 F.3d 1209, 1216 (11th Cir. 2002).
Jackson’s state criminal prosecution was pending at the time he filed his
federal complaint. Thus, if the district court granted relief to Jackson, it would be
restraining a pending state criminal prosecution. Accordingly, the district court
did not err when it found that Jackson’s complaint failed to state a claim upon
3
which relief could be granted. Since the standard of review for failure to state a
claim is more stringent than that of dismissal for frivolity, the district court
likewise did not err, if it dismissed the complaint for frivolity. Furthermore,
because the criminal proceedings were ongoing at the time of the complaint, the
application of the abstention doctrine by the district court was not an abuse of
discretion.
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the judgment of dismissal.
AFFIRMED.
4