Blackfeather v. Boulder County Jail, et al

Filing 24

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying without prejudice leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/25/14. 9 Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action is granted, and no certificate of appealability will issue. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 14-cv-01762-BNB
MICAH JAMES BLACKFEATHER,
Applicant,
v.
BOULDER COUNTY JAIL,
BOULDER COUNTY COURTS,
BOULDER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPT.,
COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE PUEBLO, and
WILLIAM J. MAY,
Respondents.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Micah James Blackfeather, is confined at the Colorado Mental Health
Institute at Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Blackfeather initiated this action by filing pro se a
“Motion to Admit Evidence of Perjury Violation of Due Process of Law” (ECF No. 1), a
“Motion for Court Appointed Attorney, Filing, Court Proceeding, Bond P.R.” (ECF No. 3),
and a “Motion to Acquire Council, File a Lawsuit Against McDonalds Corp.” (ECF No. 4)
seeking relief pertinent to his pending state court criminal cases in the Boulder County
District Court. The instant habeas corpus action was commenced and, on June 24,
2014, Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland entered an order directing Mr. Blackfeather to
cure certain deficiencies if he wishes to pursue his claims. In particular, Magistrate
Judge Boland directed Mr. Blackfeather to file on the proper form an application for a
writ of habeas corpus and either to pay the $5.00 filing fee or to file on the proper form a

motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
On June 30, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather filed a motion requesting the necessary
forms to cure the deficiencies. (See ECF No. 6.) On July 1, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather
submitted for filing in this action a Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (ECF No. 9), a Prisoner’s
Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 10), a
letter expressing his innocence in the pending state court criminal cases (ECF No. 11),
an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (ECF No. 12)
that is not signed challenging the pending state court criminal proceedings, and a
Prisoner Complaint (ECF No. 13) seeking release on bond and dismissal of the pending
state court criminal charges. On July 2, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather tendered for filing in this
action a Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF
No. 14). On July 7, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather submitted for filing a statement from his
custodian (ECF No. 15) indicating that he has no funds in his inmate account. On July
10, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather submitted for filing in this action another Prisoner’s Motion
and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus
Action (ECF No. 16) and an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 17) seeking relief pertinent to the pending state court criminal
cases. On July 17, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather filed in this action two motions and a letter
(ECF Nos. 18-20) asking to be released from custody and other relief pertinent to his
pending state court criminal cases. On July 21, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather filed in this
action another motion (ECF No. 21) seeking immediate release from custody. On July
22, 2014, Mr. Blackfeather filed in this action another motion (ECF No. 22) seeking
2

release from custody.
The operative pleading before the Court is the Application for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 17) filed on July 10, 2014. Mr.
Blackfeather claims in the operative pleading that he is being held illegally because he
is innocent and the criminal charges pending against him are false and that the public
defender appointed to represent him in the state court criminal cases is ineffective and
has a conflict of interest. As relief Mr. Blackfeather seeks the following:
Immediat[e] relief please. 1. Dismiss case, 2. P.R. Bond
3. Release from all custodies including Colorado Mental
Health Institute, 4. New Attorney 35C 5. Unbiased
courtroom or change of venue, 6. OR represent Pro Se with
attorney help. 7. my own account of events considered as
relevant evidence 8. throw out hearsay evidence and false
testimony of officer Korn and others. 9. Tru[]ly investigate
the case to find out that the victims and witnesses are not
true, 10. conduct an investigation with McDonald’s Corp.
regarding the role they played. 11. Find me obviously
fals[e]ly imprisoned.
(ECF No. 17 at 5.) Mr. Blackfeather makes similar claims and allegations and seeks
similar relief in his other pleadings and motions.
The Court must construe the documents filed by Mr. Blackfeather liberally
because he is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,
520-21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the
Court should not be an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For
the reasons stated below, the action will be dismissed.
Absent extraordinary or special circumstances, federal courts are prohibited from
interfering with ongoing state criminal proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971); Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997). Abstention is
3

appropriate if three conditions are met: “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the
state proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings
afford an adequate opportunity to present the federal constitutional challenges.”
Phelps, 122 F.3d at 889.
The first condition is met because Mr. Blackfeather concedes that the state court
proceedings are ongoing. The second condition also is met because the Supreme
Court “has recognized that the States’ interest in administering their criminal justice
systems free from federal interference is one of the most powerful of the considerations
that should influence a court considering equitable types of relief.” Kelly v. Robinson,
479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). With respect to the third
condition, Mr. Blackfeather fails to demonstrate the absence of an adequate opportunity
to present his claims in the state proceedings.
Mr. Blackfeather “may overcome the presumption of abstention ‘in cases of
proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without
hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances
where irreparable injury can be shown.’” Phelps, 122 F.3d at 889 (quoting Perez v.
Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971)). However, the fact that Mr. Blackfeather will be
forced to appear in state court on criminal charges, by itself, is not sufficient to establish
great and immediate irreparable injury. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46; Dolack v.
Allenbrand, 548 F.2d 891, 894 (10th Cir. 1977).
Courts have considered three factors in determining whether a prosecution is
commenced in bad faith or to harass:
(1) whether it was frivolous or undertaken with no reasonably
4

objective hope of success; (2) whether it was motivated by
the defendant’s suspect class or in retaliation for the
defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights; and (3) whether
it was conducted in such a way as to constitute harassment
and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, typically through
the unjustified and oppressive use of multiple prosecutions.
Phelps, 122 F.3d at 889. It is Mr. Blackfeather’s “‘heavy burden’ to overcome the bar of
Younger abstention by setting forth more than mere allegations of bad faith or
harassment.” Id.
Mr. Blackfeather fails to demonstrate that the criminal case against him was
commenced with no reasonable hope of success. He also fails to demonstrate any
improper motivation for the charges. Finally, there is no indication that the criminal case
against Mr. Blackfeather has been conducted in such a way as to constitute harassment
or an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Therefore, the Court finds that Younger
abstention is appropriate in this action.
In summary, the instant action will be dismissed because Mr. Blackfeather fails to
allege facts that indicate he will suffer great and immediate irreparable injury if the Court
does not intervene in the ongoing state court criminal proceedings. If Mr. Blackfeather
ultimately is convicted in state court and he believes that his federal constitutional rights
were violated in obtaining that conviction, he may pursue his claims in federal court by
filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he
exhausts state remedies.
The Court also certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status will be
denied for the purpose of appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438

5

(1962). If Applicant files a notice of appeal he also must pay the full $505 appellate
filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit within thirty days in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 24.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Prisoner’s Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED. It
is
FURTHER ORDERED the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 17) is denied and the action is dismissed without prejudice.
It is
FURTHER ORDERED that all pending motions are DENIED as moot. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because
Applicant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is
denied without prejudice to the filing of a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of

July

, 2014.

BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge
United States District Court

6