Bolton v. Allen ( 2012 )

UNI'I``ED STATES DISTRICT COURT L E D
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NUV l 3 2012
R<)bert L. Bolt<)n, ) C|erk, u.s. District and
) B¢nkruptcy Courts
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 12-1272 (UNA)
)
Nancy Allen et al., )
)
Defendants. )
MEMORANDUM OPH\IION
This matter is before the Court on review of the plaintiff s pro se complaint and
application to proceed in forma pauperz's. The application will be granted and the complaint will
be dismissed under the Younger abstention doctrine discussed below.
The plaintiff appears to be a pretrial detainee at the Correctional Treatment Facility in the
District of Columbia. See Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights ("Compl.") at 4. The plaintiff
sues Judge Herbert B. Dixon of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, United States
Attomey for the District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen, and other individuals who are
participating in his criminal prosecution, for allegedly failing to protect his constitutional rights
during his arrest and indictment, between January and June of 2012. See id. at 6-7. The plaintiff
"would like this Honorable Court to dismiss" his criminal case "with prejudice." Id. at 5. He
f also seeks his "immediate release" and $50,000 in monetary damages from each defendant. Id.
The proper recourse for the plaintiff is to apply for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, but "a federal court may dismiss an action when there is a direct conflict between
the exercise of federal and state jurisdiction and considerations of comity and federalism dictate
that the federal court should defer to the state proceedings." H0ai v. Sun Rej?ning and Marketing
Co., Inc., 866 F.2d 1515, 1517 (D.C. Cir. l989) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45
(l97l); Pennzoil Co., v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. l, 9-10 (1987)). Such is the case here because
the plaintiff will have the opportunity to litigate the underlying claims of this action in the
pending criminal proceeding in Superior Court. See Bria'ges v. Kelly, 84 F.3d 470, 476 (D.C.
Cir. 1996) (fmding Younger doctrine applicable "when there are ongoing [judicial] state
proceedings [that] implicate important state interests [and] afford an adequate opportunity in
which to raise the federal claims"); Reed v. Caulfz``eld, 734 F. Supp. 2d 23, 24-25 (D.D.C. 20lO)
("[W]hile Section 2241 establishes jurisdiction in the federal courts to consider pretrial habeas
corpus petitions, it is established that federal courts generally should abstain from the exercise of
that jurisdiction ‘if the issues raised in the petition may be resolved either by trial on the merits in
793
the state court or by other state procedures available to the petitioner. ) (quoting Dickerson v.
Louisiana, 816 F.2d 220, 225 (5“‘ Cir. 1987)); see also Wz``lliams v. Warden-Cent. Det. Facilily,
538 F. Supp. 2d 74, 76 (D.D.C. 2008) ("Federal courts, respecting comity, will interfere with
‘state courts only in rare cases where exceptional circumstances of peculiar urgency are shown to
exist."’) (quoting Ex parte Hawk, 321 U.S. l14, 117 (1944)). In addition, it appears from the
allegations that the plaintiff would not be entitled to monetary damages without first having his
detention officially invalidated by, inter aIia, a court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. See
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Given "the fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal
prosecutions" absent a showing of irreparable injury that is "both great and immediate,"
Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, this Court, finding no such harm shown, will dismiss the instant action.'
DATE; october 21 ,2012
U t d States Distr1ctJudge
l A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.