Hill v. Jeffries et al

Filing 8

ORDER staying and administratively terminating this case pending final disposition of Mr. Hill's criminal charges. All pending motion are denied as moot. This case is subject to reopening upon Mr. Hill's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition of the criminal charges. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 10/15/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
BATESVILLE DIVISION
DARYL JEROME HILL
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 1:13CV00013 KGB

STEVE JEFFRIES et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Plaintiff Daryl Jerome Hill, currently held at the Independence County Detention Facility,
filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Dkt. No. 2), on February 14, 2013. Mr. Hill
filed an amended complaint on April 22, 2012 (Dkt. No. 6). Defendants are Independence County
Sheriff Steve Jeffries, John Scrbrough of the Independence County Drug Task Force, Stone County
Sheriff Chuck Day, and Richard Pickard of the Stone County Drug Task Force.
I. Screening
Before docketing the complaint, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the court must review
the complaint to identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint if it: (1) is frivolous or
malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief
against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Rule 8(a)(2) 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 Corp. v. Twombly, 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.” 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (alteration in original) (quoting 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure
§ 1216, at 235-36 (3d. ed. 2004)). A complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim to relief

that is plausible on its face, not merely conceivable. 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, 1043-44 (8th Cir. 2002).
II. Analysis
Although Mr. Hill’s complaint is not a model of clarity, it appears from the complaint that
Mr. Hill had a January hearing in a state criminal matter and is currently facing felony charges. Mr.
Hill seeks monetary and injunctive relief for his allegedly false imprisonment.1
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (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

1

Mr. Hill has made similar claims in Hill v. Day et al., ED/AR No. 1:13CV00030 and Hill
v. Jefferies et al., ED/AR No. 1:13CV00031.
2

circumstance that would make abstention inappropriate.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm’n v.
Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 435 (1982).
It is clear from the complaint that Mr. Hill is involved in an ongoing state judicial proceeding
in connection with criminal charges. Given that the criminal matter is ongoing, that the state clearly
has an important interest in enforcing criminal laws, and that Mr. Hill may raise constitutional
challenges in the context of his criminal case, the Court believes it should abstain from entertaining
Mr. Hill’s constitutional claims. There is no indication of bad faith, harassment, or any other
extraordinary circumstance which would make abstention inappropriate.
Having determined that the Court should abstain from entertaining Mr. Hill’s claims, it must
decide whether to dismiss, or to stay, the case. When Younger abstention applies in a case where
only injunctive or equitable relief is sought, it is clear that the appropriate disposition is dismissal
of the federal action. Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 481 (8th Cir. 1998).
However, the Eighth Circuit has explained that:
[w]hen monetary damages are sought in addition to injunctive relief and the federal
court is not asked to declare a state statute unconstitutional in order to award
damages, the case should not be dismissed. As long as there may be issues which
will need to be determined in federal court, a stay rather than a dismissal is the
preferred procedure to use in abstaining.
Stroud, 179 F.3d at 603-04 (internal citations omitted).
Here, Mr. Hill seeks damages and does not seek a declaration that a state statute is
unconstitutional. Accordingly, Mr. Hill’s complaint must be stayed and administratively terminated.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to stay and administratively terminate this

3

proceeding pending final disposition of Mr. Hill’s criminal charges.
2.

All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

3.

This case is subject to reopening upon Mr. Hill’s filing of a motion to reopen the case

after such final disposition of his criminal charges.
DATED this 15th day of October, 2013.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

4