Buford v. Wright et al
ORDER granting 8 MOTION to Dismiss Party filed by Kevin Martel Buford, II & dismissing Peggy Wright as a Defendant; denying without prejudice 7 Plaintiff's MOTION to Appoint Counsel; denying without prejudice 9 Plaintiff's MOTION to A mend Complaint. All proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the criminal charges pending against Plaintiff. This case is administratively closed pending final disposition of the criminal charges against Plaintiff, & may be reopened by Plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the case after such final disposition. Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 8/25/2011. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
KEVIN MARTEL BUFORD, II
CASE NO. 3:10CV00247-BSM
ALBERT WRIGHT; Chief of Police,
Luxora Police Department; and
Plaintiff Kevin Martel Buford, II filed this pro se complaint [Doc. No. 2] pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights.
On September 5, 2010, the Mississippi County Sheriff notified Luxora, Arkansas,
Police Chief Albert Wright that Luxora resident Peggy Wright reported that around 11:00
p.m. on September 4, 2010, three men had broken into her home, tied her up and robbed her.
[Doc. No. 9 at 3, 6]. The men then fled in her 1993 Chevrolet Corsica. [Id. at 3, 7] . Later
that day after a high speed chase, Caruthersville, Missouri police officers arrested Buford and
two other men. [Doc. No. 2 at 4; Doc. No. 9 at 3, 7]. Buford was later served with warrants
from Arkansas and extradited to Arkansas. [Doc. No. 2 at 5].
On September 23, 2010, a felony information was filed in the Circuit Court of
Mississippi County Arkansas, Osceola District, Criminal Division, charging Buford with
aggravated robbery, theft of property, and kidnaping.
Buford’s complaint names Luxora Police Department Chief Albert Wright and the
victim of the home invasion and robbery, Peggy Wright, as defendants. [Doc. No. 2]. Buford
has since filed a motion to dismiss defendant Peggy Wright, stating, “Defendant Peggy Sue
Wright is deceased therefore Plaintiff request (sic) that the court remove her from the case.”
[Doc. No. 8]. Buford’s motion to dismiss Peggy Wright as a defendant in this action is
granted. Buford also filed a motion to amend his complaint [Doc. No. 9] whereby he seeks
to add Deputy Prosecutor Catherine Dean and Mayor Jasper Jackson as Defendants.
Buford’s complaint essentially asserts claims of malicious prosecution against
defendant Chief Wright. Buford states that Chief Wright has engaged in illegal conduct
leading to his arrest, incarceration, and prosecution.
According to his pleadings, state criminal charges are presently pending against
Buford for these alleged events. Because a criminal case is pending, his claims are barred
under the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 59 (1971). The
Younger principle provides that federal courts should abstain from hearing cases when there
is an ongoing state judicial proceeding that implicates important state interests, and when that
proceeding affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal questions presented.
Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901, 903 (8th Cir. 2005). “A federal court must not, save in
exceptional and extremely limited circumstances, intervene by way of either injunction or
declaration in an existing state criminal prosecution.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 56. Although
a narrow bad faith exception to the Younger abstention doctrine does exist, when a criminal
prosecution is initiated “to retaliate for or discourage the exercise of constitutional rights,”
no such bad faith is apparent here as the criminal proceeding preceded this lawsuit. Mershon
v. Kyser, 852 F.2d 335, 337 (8th Cir. 1988). Further, Buford has not shown that the state
court proceeding will not provide him with an adequate opportunity to raise his federal
In Wallace v. Kato, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed that “civil tort actions
are not appropriate vehicles for challenging the validity of outstanding criminal judgments.”
549 U.S. 384, 392 (2007) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1993)). The Court
continued, “[i]f a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted (or files any
other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal
trial), it is within the power of the district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay
the civil action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is ended.” Id. at
393. If Buford is ultimately convicted, and this suit would imply the invalidity of that
conviction, Heck requires dismissal; otherwise, this action can proceed, absent some other
bar to suit. Id. at 394.
In light of these findings, Buford's illegal arrest claims against Chief Wright are stayed
and administratively terminated. See Yamaha Motor Corp. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598 (8th Cir.
1999) (stay rather than dismissal is appropriate when damages are sought and the court is not
being asked to declare a state statute unconstitutional). Buford may re-open this case by
filing a motion at the conclusion of his criminal case.
Buford’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice at this time
because his claims do not appear legally or factually complex and he appears capable of
prosecuting his claims without appointed counsel. See Rayes v. Johnson, 969 F.2d 700, 703
(8th Cir. 1992). Buford’s motion to amend complaint is denied without prejudice.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Peggy Wright [Doc. No. 8] as a defendant is
Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel [Doc No. 7] is DENIED without
prejudice at this time.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend complaint [Doc. No. 9] is DENIED without
All proceedings in this case are STAYED pending final disposition of the
criminal charges pending against Plaintiff;
This case is administratively closed pending final disposition of the criminal
charges against Plaintiff, and may be reopened by Plaintiff's filing of a motion to reopen the
case after such final disposition.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2011.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?