Larsen v. Dumanis et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, dismissing complaint on younger abstention grounds and denying 4 Motion for injunction. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 1/22/07. (tkl, )

Download PDF
Larsen v. Dumanis et al Doc. 5 Case 3:07-cv-00028-JM-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CLIFFORD C. LARSEN, vs. Plaintiff, CASE NO. 07 CV 0028 JM (BLM) ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT ON YOUNGER ABSTENTION GROUNDS, AND (3) DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION BONNIE DUMANIS, District Attorney of San Diego County; SHONTEL, District Attorney of El Cajon East County; SHERRY HARRIS, paralegal to Shontel; CITY OF LA MESA; LA MESA POLICE DEPARTMENT; RUSSEL LOCKWOOD; and JOHN DOE, Defendants. On January 3, 2007, plaintiff Clifford C. Larsen ("Plaintiff"), a non-prisoner proceeding pro se and currently residing in Rochester, New York, filed this complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against defendants. Plaintiff also moves to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. Upon review of Plaintiff's declaration listing his income, assets, and debt, the court concludes Plaintiff is unable to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff has been unemployed since February 2005, has no assets or income from any source, and owes student loans in the amount of $15,000. Accordingly, the court GRANTS the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), however, the court may sua sponte -107cv0028 Case 3:07-cv-00028-JM-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 dismiss the action if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The underlying facts summarized herein are taken from the complaint. In February 2006, Plaintiff was arrested at his San Diego county apartment by local police in connection with reports of a household disturbance. Plaintiff was thereafter criminally charged and given a trial date of June 12, 2006. Plaintiff did not appear for his trial and instead traveled to upstate New York where his family lives. In October 2006, Plaintiff was arrested in New York by United States Marshals on a fugitive warrant. Plaintiff is currently out of custody on bail and is in New York awaiting extradition to California. Plaintiff's requested relief are damages and injunction preventing district attorney Bonnie Dumanis, district attorney Shontel, and the La Mesa, California police department "from seeking governors warrant by 2/07." Comp. at 7. It is clear from the complaint that Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin his extradition and his pending prosecution in California. Federal courts, however, will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except under extraordinary circumstances, such as when there is an immediate threat to a plaintiff's federally protected rights that cannot be eliminated by his defense against a single prosecution. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). The present complaint does not evidence any such extraordinary circumstances warranting deviation from the Younger rule. // // // // // // // // -207cv0028 Case 3:07-cv-00028-JM-BLM Document 5 Filed 01/22/2007 Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, the court DISMISSES the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has also submitted to the court a separate "Motion to request injunction by 1/22/07 and prayer for relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983", which has not yet been filed with the clerk. The clerk is ORDERED to file this separate motion. The court DENIES the separate motion for injunctive relief for the same reasons the complaint is being dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 22, 2007 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge cc: All Parties -3- 07cv0028

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?