Brunhammer v. Markell et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, ORDER, Motions terminated: 22 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Paul M. Brunhammer.. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 1/13/16. (sar)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PAUL M. BRUNHAMMER,
Plaintiff,
V.

JACK A. MARKELL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
) Civ. Action No. 15-864-GMS
)
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
T~
r--.
At Wilmington this f'7 day of

c.l ""'\

, 2016,

The plaintiff, Paul M. Brunhammer ("Brunhammer"), a New Jersey inmate at the Adult
Diagnostic & Treatment Center ("ADTC") in Avenel, New Jersey, filed this lawsuit pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983. (D.I. 1.) He appears prose and was granted permission to proceed informa

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 7.) Pending before the court is Brunhammer's
motion for a preliminary injunction barring any and all future prosecution of him in the State of
Delaware. (D.I. 22.)
In order to be granted a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff
must demonstrate, the likelihood of success on the merits. Maldonado v. Houstoun, 157 F.3d
179, 184 (3d Cir. 1998). Brunhammer cannot demonstrate the likelihood of success in seeking
injunctive relief because, except in rare instances not present here, the court must abstain from
the issuance of injunctions directed to state court criminal prosecutions.
Pursuant to the doctrine developed in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), "federal
courts should abstain from enjoining state criminal prosecutions because of principles of comity
and federalism, unless certain extraordinary circumstances exist." Marran v. Marran, 376 F.3d

143, 154 (3d Cir. 2004). In addition, comity concerns are implicated by a request to enjoin state
court criminal proceedings. See Gonzalez v. Waterfront Comm 'n of the NY Harbor, 755 F.3d
176, 180 (3d Cir. 2014) ("In Younger, the Supreme Court held that absent a showing of bad faith
or an intent to harass, federal courts should decline requests to enjoin state criminal prosecutions,
'particularly ... when the moving party has an adequate remedy in state court."') (internal
citations and quotations omitted).
Brunhammer seeks immediate action because he has less than a month left on his New
Jersey sentence and claims he has been denied his right to a speedy trial and right to counsel.
(D.1. 22.) Brunhammer previously sought, and was denied the injunctive relief he now seeks.
(See D.I. 19.) Nothing has changed since that time.
To reiterate, in the instant case, Brunhammer's ongoing state court proceedings are penal
in nature. His allegations concern additional alleged violations of rights that will be caused by
the continuance of his criminal prosecution and, therefore, his motions squarely implicate the
comity and federalism concerns Younger abstention prevents.
To the extent Brunhammer will be harmed by the continuance of his criminal prosecution
in the Superior Court, he has adequate remedies in that state forum to prevent the violation of his
rights. Therefore, the court denies

th~

motion for a preliminary injunction. (D.1. 22.)

E

2