Cooney v. Arkansas, State of et al
Filing
14
ORDER granting #12 motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court assesses an initial partial fee of $13.20. After the initial fee is collected, Cooney's custodian is directed to collect monthly payments from Cooney's prison trust account and forward to the Clerk of Court until a total of $350 has been paid in full. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Administrator of the Conway County Detention Center. This case is stayed and Cooney can move to reopen the case after final disposition of his state case, including any appeal. If Cooney doesn't file a timely motion to reopen or a status report by 9/8/2022 then the Court will reopen the case and dismiss it without prejudice. #13 Motion for status update denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 9/8/2021. (jak)
Case 4:21-cv-00717-DPM Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
KRISHONN COONEY
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 4:21-cv-717-DPM
STATE OF ARKANSAS; TAYLOR
DOOBIE, Officer, Morrilton Police
Department; NATHAN WATKINS,
Officer, Morrilton Police Department;
and WILLCUT, Detective
DEFENDANTS
ORDER
1. Motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 12, granted. The
Court assesses an initial partial fee of $13.20. After the initial fee is
collected, Cooney' s custodian must collect monthly payments from
Cooney' s prison trust account each time the amount in the account
exceeds $10.00. These payments will be equal to twenty percent of the
preceding month's income credited to the account; and they will be
collected and forwarded to the Clerk of the Court until the $350.00 filing
fee is paid in full. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2). The payments forwarded on
Cooney' s behalf must be clearly identified by case name and case
number.
2. The Court directs the Clerk to send a copy of this order to the
Administrator of the Conway County Detention Center, 30 Southern
Valley Drive, Morrilton, Arkansas 72110.
Case 4:21-cv-00717-DPM Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 3
3. The Court must screen Cooney' s complaint. Doc. 1; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A. Cooney says there was no probable cause for the searches of
his vehicle and house on 25 November 2020. Doc. 1. Public records
reflect that Cooney was charged in connection with drugs and
paraphernalia found during the searches; and he is awaiting trial on
those charges in Conway County. State v. Cooney, No. 15CR-21-19. The
Court can take notice of the proceedings in Cooney' s state case because
they're directly related to the issues here. Conforti v. United States,
74 F.3d 838, 840 (8th Cir. 1996).
The Court must abstain from proceeding with Cooney' s federal
case because the criminal case is ongoing, Arkansas has an important
interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Cooney may raise his
constitutional claims during his state criminal proceedings. Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971); Mounkes v. Conklin, 922 F. Supp. 1501,
1510-13 (D. Kansas 1996). Further, there's no indication of bad faith,
harassment, or any other extraordinary circumstances that would make
abstention inappropriate.
Tony Alamo Christian Ministries v. Selig,
664 F.3d 1245, 1254 (8th Cir. 2012). Cooney's claims must therefore be
put on hold until there's a final disposition of his pending state charges.
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. v. Stroud, 179 F.3d 598, 603-04
(8th Cir. 1999).
-2-
Case 4:21-cv-00717-DPM Document 14 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 3
* * *
This case is stayed. Cooney can move to reopen this case after
final disposition of his state case, including any appeal. Any motion to
reopen must be filed within sixty days of that final disposition. If
Cooney doesn't file a timely motion to reopen or a status report by
8 September 2022, then the Court will reopen the case and dismiss it
without prejudice. Motion for status update, Doc. 13, denied as moot.
So Ordered.
v
D .P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
-3-
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?