Haff v. Firman

Filing 12

ORDER dismissing this action without prejudice, and denying as moot 11 "Appeal from Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher's Order to Amend Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A)," by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 1/21/16. No certificate of appealability will issue. (dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-02579-GPG
STEPHEN HAFF, Private flesh and blood Sovereign American Citizen,
Applicant,
v.
PATRICK FIRMAN, Sheriff of the City and County of Denver,
Respondent.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Applicant, Stephen Haff, is a pre-trial detainee at the Denver County Jail in
Denver, Colorado. He has filed pro se an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 9) in which he asserts that his Fifth, Sixth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated in an ongoing state criminal
proceeding because he is “a Private Sovereign American Citizen.” The Court must
construe the Application liberally because Mr. Haff 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 act as an advocate for a pro se
litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. For the reasons stated below, the Application will
be denied and the action will be dismissed without prejudice.
In the Application, Mr. Haff alleges that he was arrested on January 12, 2015 and
“deposited into the custody of the respondent Sheriff of the City and County of Denver.”
(ECF No. 9 at 2). He further alleges that the State of Colorado initiated criminal
1

proceedings against him for “alleged violations of the State’s ‘criminal statutes.’” (Id.).
He then asserts the following five claims:
•

[i]t is lawfully impossible for the applicant to violate any statute belonging to the
state because the applicant is not and has never been a member, subject, and/or
affiliated in any way with the state (claim one);

•

[t]he applicant is not subject to the Denver County and District Courts (claim two);

•

[t]he state lacks legal standing to bring and maintain [his criminal] case because
the state has not suffered an (1) injury in fact (2) to a legally protected interest
(claim three);

•

Article III. Section 2. Clause 2., of the Constitution for the United States of
America specifically prohibits any state court from exerting jurisdiction over [his
criminal] case (claim four); and

•

[a]lthough the underlying matter is called a criminal case. The true nature of the
proceeding is of a commercial nature and the state and the state courts exerting
jurisdiction over it. Are using a quasi form of admiralty-maritime rules to
intentionally deceive the applicant (claim five).

(ECF No. 9 at 2-12).
Mr. Haff seeks an order “directing the respondent to certify the true cause of the
applicant’s detention.” (Id. at 13).
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
appropriate under Younger 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 abstention principles of Younger are
jurisdictional and apply when the petitioner seeks federal habeas corpus relief under 28
2

U.S.C. § 2241 to enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding. See Dolack v. Allenbrand,
548 F.3d 891, 893 (10th Cir. 1977).
The first condition for Younger abstention is met because Mr. Haff concedes that
the state criminal proceeding is ongoing. The second condition also is satisfied
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). Under
the third condition, Mr. Haff will have an opportunity to raise his constitutional claims
during the state criminal proceeding and there is no reason to believe his claims will not
be given full and proper consideration by the state courts. See Kugler v. Helfant, 421
U.S. 117, 95 S. Ct. 1254 (1975) (noting that “ordinarily a pending state prosecution
provides the accused a fair and sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal
constitutional rights”). The fact that Mr. Haff’s efforts to prevent the State from
prosecuting the criminal case against him so far have been unsuccessful does not
mean that he has not had, or does not have, an adequate opportunity to present his
federal constitutional issues during the state court proceedings.
Mr. Haff “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)).

3

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 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. Haff’s “‘heavy burden’ to overcome the bar of
Younger abstention by setting forth more than mere allegations of bad faith or
harassment.” Id. Notwithstanding Mr. Haff’s clearly stated belief that the state court
lacks jurisdiction to prosecute him, Mr. Haff does not allege any facts to suggest that the
criminal case was commenced with no reasonable hope of success. He also fails to
demonstrate or even allege any improper motivation for the charges. Finally, there is no
indication that the criminal case against Mr. Haff has been conducted in such a way as
to constitute harassment or an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
Finally, Mr. Haff has not shown an irreparable injury stemming from the state
court criminal prosecutions. The fact that he will be forced to stand trial on the criminal
charges does not establish great and immediate irreparable injury. See Phelps, 122
F.3d at 889 (The “‘threat to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights’ is only irreparable if it
‘cannot be eliminated by . . . defense against a single prosecution.’”) (quoting Younger,
401 U.S. at 46). See also Dolack , 548 F.2d at 894. In short, Mr. Haff’s conclusory
assertions in support of his claims are not sufficient to overcome the bar of Younger
abstention. Therefore, the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction.

4

If Mr. Haff 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 this Court by filing an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 after he exhausts state remedies. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 9), filed pro se by Applicant, Stephen Haff, is DENIED and this
action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the “Appeal from Magistrate Judge Gordon P.
Gallagher’s Order to Amend Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(A)” (ECF No. 11) is DENIED as moot. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue because Mr.
Haff has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
Dated January 21, 2016, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:

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

5