CARROLL v. SANTA ROSA JAIL et al

Filing 5

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Recommended that the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1 ) be DISMISSED without prejudice on the ground that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) applies. R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY on 12/19/2016. Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 1/17/2017. (sdw)

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
TERRA CARROLL,
Petitioner,
vs.

Case No.: 3:16cv635/LAC/EMT

SANTA ROSA JAIL
and FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL,
Respondents.
_____________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus
(ECF No. 1). The case was referred to the undersigned for the issuance of all
preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive
matters. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful consideration of all issues raised by Petitioner, it
is the opinion of the undersigned that the petition should be dismissed without
prejudice on the ground that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), applies.
I.

BACKGROUND
Petitioner was arrested in Santa Rosa County Florida, Case No. 2016-CF-1406,

on September 10, 2016 (ECF No. 1 at 2). She states she is currently housed in either
the Santa Rosa County Jail or the Florida State Hospital; however, she mailed her
petition from the Florida State Hospital (see id. at 2, 13). Although the background
and procedural history of Petitioner’s commitment is not included in her habeas

Page 2 of 4

petition, the court takes judicial notice of information available on the database
maintained by the Santa Rosa County Clerk of Court.1 Petitioner was charged in the
Santa Rosa County Circuit Court, Case No. 2016-CF-1406, with one count of fleeing
or eluding a law enforcement officer at a high speed, and one count of resisting an
officer without violence. See www.santarosaclerk.com (follow “Search Court
Records” hyperlink; then follow “Go To Search Court Records” hyperlink; then
follow “Case Search” hyperlink; then search Case Number “2016 Felony (CF)
001406”). On October 19, 2016, the state court adjudicated Petitioner incompetent
to proceed and committed her to the custody of Florida Department of Children and
Families.
In the instant habeas petition, Petitioner challenges her continued commitment
on the ground that Florida’s competency statutes, Florida Statutes § 916.111 et seq.,
are unconstitutional on their face and as applied to her (ECF No. 1 at 2–11).
Petitioner requests discharge from custody and dismissal of the pending criminal
charges (id. at 12).
II.

ANALYSIS

1

See Fed. R. Evid. 201; United States v. Berrojo, 628 F.3d 368, 369 (5th Cir. 1980) (“The
doctrine of judicial notice permits a judge to consider a generally accepted or readily verified fact
as proved without requiring evidence to establish it.”); see also Mangiafico v. Blumenthal, 471 F.3d
391, 398 (2d Cir. 2006) (district court permissibly looked to docket sheets in ruling on motion to
dismiss because “docket sheets are public records of which the court could take judicial notice”);
In re Salem, 465 F.3d 767, 771 (7th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of state court dockets and
opinions); Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of state
court orders and proceedings); United States v. Mercado, 412 F.3d 243, 247–48 (1st Cir. 2005)
(taking judicial notice of state court docket entries).
Case No.: 3:16cv635/LAC/EMT

Page 3 of 4

This cause of action is subject to dismissal pursuant to the Younger abstention
doctrine. This doctrine, announced in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746,
27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971), reaffirmed the “strong federal policy against federal-court
interference with pending state judicial proceedings.” Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm.
v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L. Ed. 2d 116
(1982). Abstention is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding
involves the same subject matter. See New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City
of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 373, 109 S. Ct. 2506, 105 L. Ed .2d 298 (1989)
(“[T]here is no doctrine that . . . pendency of state judicial proceedings excludes the
federal courts.”). The Supreme Court has recognized, however, certain instances in
which the prospect of undue interference with state proceedings counsels against
federal relief. See id. at 368.
Younger exemplifies one class of cases in which federal-court abstention is
required: When there is a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding, federal courts
must refrain from enjoining the state prosecution. In the instant case, the proceedings
in Petitioner’s criminal case are ongoing; therefore, the instant case falls within the
scope of Younger.

Additionally, Petitioner has not shown that the criminal

proceeding was brought to harass her or was otherwise motivated by bad faith, or that
the criminal statutes under which she is being detained are “flagrantly and patently
violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence and
paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made
to apply it,” see Younger, 401 U.S. at 53–54. Moreover, an adequate alternative state
Case No.: 3:16cv635/LAC/EMT

Page 4 of 4

forum exists for Petitioner to raise her claims, namely, an appeal—or certiorari
review—of any order committing or recommitting her to the custody of the Florida
Department of Children and Families. See Nelson v. State, 126 So. 3d 442, 443 (Fla.
4th DCA 2013); Furqan v. State, 91 So. 3d 913, 915 & n.1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
For the aforementioned reasons, this court should abstain from assuming
jurisdiction over Petitioner’s claims.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
That the petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED
without prejudice on the ground that the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971) applies.
At Pensacola, Florida, this 19th day of December 2016.

/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed
within fourteen (14) days after being served a copy thereof. Any different
deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use
only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other
parties. If a party fails to object to the magistrate judge’s findings or
recommendations as to any particular claim or issue contained in a report and
recommendation, that party waives the right to challenge on appeal the district
court’s order based on the unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th
Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case No.: 3:16cv635/LAC/EMT