United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
ORDER
Plaintiff
John Webb, in custody at the Saline County Detention Center,
filed a pro se Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP), which was granted. (Doc. Nos. 1-3).
I.
Screening
Federal
law requires courts to screen in forma pauperis
complaints, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and prisoner complaints
seeking relief against a governmental entity, officer, or
employee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Claims that are legally
frivolous or malicious; that fail to state a claim for
relief; or that seek money from a defendant who is immune
from paying damages should be dismissed before the defendants
are served. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires only
“a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Bell
Atlantic Corporation v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007), the Court stated, “a plaintiff's obligation
to provide the ‘grounds' of his
‘entitle[ment] to relief' requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements
of a cause of action will not do. . . . Factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level, ” citing 5 C. Wright &
A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216, pp.
235-236 (3d ed. 2004). A complaint must contain enough facts
to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, not
merely conceivable. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
However, a pro se plaintiff's allegations must
be construed liberally. Burke v. North Dakota Dept. of
Corr. & Rehab., 294 F.3d 1043, 1043-1044 (8th
Cir.2002) (citations omitted).
II.
Background
Webb
sued public defenders Toney Brasuell, Johnathan Camp, and J.
Brent Standridge, as well as Judge Mark Robinson. (Doc. No.
2). He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel.
(Id. at 4). He further alleges Judge Robinson signed
court documents without Brasuell, Camp, or Standridge having
appeared before him. (Id. at 5). Webb seeks damages
and asks that the child endangerment charges against him be
dropped. (Id. at 6).
III.
Discussion
In
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971), the
Supreme Court held that federal courts should abstain from
interfering in ongoing state proceedings. The Court explained
the rationale for such abstention as follows:
[The concept of federalism] represent[s] . . . a system in
which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of
both State and National Governments, and in which the
National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate
and protect federal rights and federal interests, always
endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere
with the legitimate activities of the States.
Id. at 44.
Accordingly,
a federal court must abstain from entertaining constitutional
claims when: (1) there is an ongoing state judicial
proceeding; (2) the state proceeding implicates important
state interests; and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in
the state proceedings to raise the constitutional challenges.
Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 602 (8th
Cir. 1999); Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Riney, 21
F.3d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 1994). If all three questions are
answered affirmatively, a federal court should abstain unless
it detects “bad faith, harassment, or some other
extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention
inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm'n
v. Garden State Bar Ass'n , 457 U.S. 423, 435
(1982).
Webb is
involved in ongoing state criminal proceedings, and Arkansas
has an important interest in its criminal justice procedures.
As such, the Court should abstain from entertaining
plaintiffs constitutional claims. Further, there is no
indication of bad faith, harassment, or any other
extraordinary circumstance that would make abstention
inappropriate.
Having
determined that the Court should abstain from entertaining
Webb's claims, it must decide whether to dismiss, or to
stay, the case. Where only injunctive or equitable relief is
sought, dismissal is appropriate. Night Clubs, Inc. v.
City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 481 (8th Cir. 1998).
Webb, however, seeks damages. Accordingly, Webb's case is
stayed and administratively terminated. Stroud, 179
F.3d at 603-04.
IV.
...