STATE OF GEORGIA v. AL-AMEEN

Filing 2

ORDER remanding this matter to the Lowndes County Superior Court. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE W LOUIS SANDS on 7/29/2022. (sbd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
VALDOSTA DIVISION
STATE OF GEORGIA,

:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
JUSTICE QUEEN AL-AMEEN,
:
:
Defendant.
:
_________________________________:

Case No.: 7:22-CV-71 (WLS-TQL)

ORDER
On July 25, 2022, Defendant, Justice Queen Al-Ameen, filed a Notice of Removal
(Doc. 1) in this Court. Therein, Defendant noticed the Court that she wanted to remove a
pending Lowndes County, State Superior Court criminal action, in which she is the Defendant,
to Federal Court on Constitutional grounds. (Id.) The grounds, Defendant contends make this
action removable is that Superior Court Judge, James L Prine, ruled on Defendant’s motions
to change venue to the northern U.S. district of Georgia Courts, in the absence of Defendant.1
(Id.) Accordingly, it is Defendant’s position that Defendant was denied the constitutional right
to contest a trial matter in person.

The Court notes for the purposes of the record that Defendant is proceeding pro-se in the State Court criminal
action and is being charged with obstruction of a law enforcement officer. (Doc. 1.) In addition, Defendant
appears to have filed a citizen’s complaint against the arresting officers, alleging excessive force, which was
determined to be unfounded by the Valdosta Police Department, as well as other civil damages claims. (Id.)
The Court notes these facts for the purposes of the record, as it is unclear from Defendant’s Notice of Removal
(Doc. 1) whether she wishes to remove her civil complaint (the Court notes for the purposes of the record that
Defendant did not show that she filed a Complaint in any court, but rather filed a complaint directly with the
police agency) against the arresting officers, or the state criminal proceedings. In either event, however, the
result is the same, as this Court is required to abstain from reaching the merits of Defendant’s claims pursuant
to the Younger abstention doctrine.
1

1

At this time, this Court is unable to grant Defendant the relief that she seeks and
accordingly this matter is REMANDED to the Lowndes County, State Superior Court. This
Court is unable to grant Defendant relief, as any decision by this Court with respect to
Defendant’s alleged constitutional violations would violate the abstention doctrine set forth in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Under Younger, federal courts are required to abstain from
intervening with pending state criminal proceedings when the party requesting federal
intervention has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable harm. Id., at 53.
Accordingly, federal courts ordinarily must refrain from deciding the merits of a case when (1)
there is a pending state judicial proceeding; (2) the proceeding implicates important state
interest; and (3) the parties have an adequate opportunity to raise any constitutional claims in
the state proceeding. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. V. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423,
432 (1982).
In the present case, Defendant’s state criminal proceedings are pending and therefore
any decision by this Court with respect to Defendant’s constitutional claims would
substantially interfere with, and perhaps undermine, the decisions reached by the state court
in those proceedings. See Newsome v. Broward Cnty. Public Defenders, 304 F. App’x 814, 816 (11th
Cir. 2008). Furthermore, Defendant’s state criminal proceedings implicate an important state
interest. See Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 335 (1997) (recognizing the important state interest in
the enforcement of its own laws). Defendant can also raise the Constitutional claims, of which
she now complains in those state court proceedings. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
Younger abstention doctrine applies in the present case. Furthermore, it does not appear that
Defendant has filed any civil proceeding in State Court that is subject to removal.

2

The Court also notes for the purposes of the record, that Defendant has also failed to
allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine
applies. An exception to the Younger abstention doctrine applies when “(1) there is evidence
of state proceedings motivated by bad faith; (2) irreparable injury would occur; or (3) there is
no adequate state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.” Hughes v. Attorney Gen.
of Fla., F.3d 1258, 1263 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004).
In the present case there is no evidence that the state proceedings are motivated by bad
faith, that irreparable injury may occur, and that there is no adequate state forum in which
Defendant’s constitutional issues can be raised. Accordingly, this Court finds that no exception
to the Younger abstention doctrine exists at this time in this case.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, as the Younger abstention doctrine precludes this Court from reaching
the merits of Defendant’s Notice of Removal (Doc. 1), this matter is REMANDED to the
Lowndes County, Superior Court.

SO ORDERED, this 29th day of July 2022.
/s/ W. Louis Sands
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3