Augusta v. Karlin et al

Filing 7

ORDER entered by Chief Judge Sara Darrow on February 5, 2024. Plaintiff Quennel T. Augusta's #1 complaint is DISMISSED to the extent it asks for injunctive relief against the following state cases: 2023CF348, 2023CF493, 2023MT254, 2023MT527, 2023MT775, and 2023TR1428. The remainder of the case is STAYED pending resolution of those cases. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide the Court with an update on the status of those cases every 60 days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this case. Plaintiff's first status report is due April 5, 2024. In light of this ruling, the #5 motion to dismiss is MOOT. (AV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
QUENNEL T. AUGUSTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY KARLIN, JAMES STANDARD,
ANDREW DOYLE, AMBER SCHLOMER,
KYLE WINBIGLER, CAMERON
WOODBURY, and RUSSELL IDOL,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:23-cv-04235-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Plaintiff Quennel T. Augusta, representing himself, files suit against Defendants Knox
County State’s Attorney Jeremy Karlin, Judge James Standard, Judge Andrew Doyle, and police
officers Amber Schlomer, Kyle Winbigler, Cameron Woodbury, and Russell Idol. Compl. 1,
ECF No. 1. The matter comes before the Court for screening. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783
(7th Cir. 1999) (“[D]istrict courts have the power to screen complaints filed by all litigants,
prisoners and non-prisoners alike, regardless of fee status.”). For the reasons that follow,
Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED in part and STAYED in part.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has been charged in two criminal cases in Knox County, Illinois: 2023CF348
and 2023CF493. See Compl. 1. In 2023CF348, Plaintiff was charged with possession and
delivery of meth and possession and manufacturing or delivery of cocaine or an analog. See
2023CF348, Knox County, IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023CF

1

348,IL048025JL2023CF348D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024). 1 In 2023CF493, he was charged with
possession and manufacturing or delivery of cocaine or an analog. 2023CF493, Knox County,
IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023CF
493,IL048025JL2023CF493D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024).
He has also has the following traffic charges pending against him in Knox County:
driving on a suspended license, unlawful possession of cannabis, and operating a vehicle without
insurance, see 2023MT254, Knox County, IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023MT
254,IL048025JL2023MT254D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024); unlawful possession of cannabis in a
motor vehicle, see 2023MT527, Knox County, IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023MT
527,IL048025JL2023MT527D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024); improper use of registration, see
2023MT775, Knox County, IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023MT
775,IL048025JL2023MT775D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024); and driving without a license and
transporting alcohol in a motor vehicle, see 2023TR1428, Knox County, IL,
https://judici.com/courts/cases/case_dispositions.jsp?court=IL048025J&ocl=IL048025J,2023TR
1428,IL048025JL2023TR1428D1 (last visited Feb. 5, 2024).
According to the publicly available dockets, these cases were all set for a pretrial
conference at 9:00 AM on February 5, 2024. See, e.g., 2023CF348 (click on “History”)

The Court may take judicial notice of facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose
accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2). The Court takes judicial notice of information
from Knox County’s electronic case search website.

1

2

(“Continue to 2/5/24 @9am for PTC.”). Although it is not particularly clear which arrests and
prosecutions Plaintiff complains about in the instant case—he only mentions 2023CF348 and
2023CF493 but his complaint and exhibits seem to relate to some of the traffic cases as well,
see, e.g., Order for Hr’g, ECF No. 1 at 22—Plaintiff alleges that his arrests and prosecutions
violate his right to travel, Compl. 2–3, that he was illegally searched and seized, id. at 3, that his
due process rights have been violated, see id. at 3, 7, and so forth. He asks for “relief from
officer” including $50 million, “relief from the people of” the state of Illinois including $50
million and dismissal of the charges against him, for the state to “expunge” his unconstitutional
charges, and for the state of Illinois to change their statutes, rules, and regulations. Id. at 11.
DISCUSSION
a. Legal Standard
“[F]ederal courts [generally must] abstain from taking jurisdiction over federal
constitutional claims that involve or call into question ongoing state proceedings.”
FreeEats.com, Inc. v. Indiana, 502 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 43–44 (1971)). Referred to as Younger abstention, this “doctrine . . . is rooted in
traditional principles of equity, comity, and federalism.” Ewell v. Toney, 853 F.3d 911, 916 (7th
Cir. 2017). The court may raise Younger abstention sua sponte. Boothe v. Sherman, 66 F. Supp.
3d 1069, 1074 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing Capra v. Cook Cnty. Bd. of Rev., 733 F.3d 705, 713 n.5
(7th Cir. 2013)).
Under Younger abstention, a federal court must “abstain from enjoining ongoing state
proceedings that are (1) judicial in nature, (2) implicate important state interests, and (3) offer an
adequate opportunity for review of constitutional claims, (4) so long as no extraordinary
circumstances—like bias or harassment—exist which auger against abstention.” Majors v.

3

Engelbrecht, 149 F.3d 709, 711 (7th Cir. 1998). The court must also abstain from taking
jurisdiction over claims for monetary damages that “may interfere with ongoing state
proceedings.” Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013). Claims based on allegedly
“illegal searches, seizures, and detentions meet that description: they involve constitutional
issues that may be litigated during the course of [a] criminal case” and “[d]eciding those issues in
federal court could undermine the state court proceeding.” Id. Where monetary relief is not
available in the state proceedings, however, the federal court should stay rather than dismiss a
plaintiff’s claims pursuant to Younger. Id.
b. Analysis
The Court concludes that Younger abstention is required here. The gist of Plaintiff’s
complaint is that his arrests and prosecutions violate various of his constitutional rights: his right
to travel, his Fourth Amendment rights, his due process rights, etc. Resolution of his claims
could undermine the state court proceedings because it could necessitate precluding his
conviction. These are the types of claims that are barred under Younger. Cf. Bertha v. Kane
Cnty., Case No. 16 C 4982, 2018 WL 4073300, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2018) (“These claims
are closely related to the state court criminal proceedings—the events having occurred during the
proceedings—and are thus barred by Younger given that ‘the potential for federal-state friction is
obvious.’ The federal courts should not be policing ongoing state court proceedings.” (citing
Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d 134, 138 (7th Cir. 1995))).
More specifically, the Court finds the four conditions outlined above are met. The
underlying criminal proceedings are judicial in nature and ongoing. And the criminal
proceedings implicate important state interests. State criminal proceedings are the quintessential
claims covered by Younger abstention. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46; Scott v. DOC SORP

4

Admin., No. 23-CV-777-JPS, 2023 WL 4763211, at *2 (E.D. Wis. July 26, 2023) (“This case
presents a textbook Younger abstention situation: Plaintiff is asking a federal court to intervene
in his ongoing state criminal prosecution.”). Plaintiff will have an opportunity to litigate his
claims in his state cases either before trial or on appeal. See Majors, 149 F.3d at 713
(“Subsequent judicial review is a sufficient opportunity.”); Doe v. Lindell, No. 22-1666, 2023
WL 196467, at *3 (7th Cir. Jan. 17, 2023) (concluding that the plaintiff had an opportunity to
raise her claims in state court where she raised them on appeal); Doe v. Lake Cnty., Case No. 21cv-3262, 2022 WL 874651, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2022) (similar).
Finally, there do not appear to be any exceptional circumstances that counsel against
abstention. The exceptions to Younger are limited: a court should not abstain when “the pending
state proceeding was motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith” or “the
plaintiff has [otherwise] demonstrated an extraordinarily pressing need for immediate equitable
relief that, if not granted, will irreparably injure the plaintiff.” FreeEats.com, 502 F.3d at 596–
97 (quotation marks omitted). Neither circumstance is present here.
Courts typically consider three factors “[i]n determining whether a prosecution is
commenced in bad faith or to harass”: 1) “whether the prosecution is frivolous or undertaken
with no reasonable objective hope of success”; 2) “whether the prosecution is motivated by the
defendant’s suspect class or in retaliation for the defendant’s exercise of constitutional rights”;
and 3) “whether the prosecution is 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.” Reardon v. Danley, No. 21-CV-2260, 2022 WL 3227005, at *9 (C.D. Ill. July 6,
2022) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). A plaintiff “must allege specific facts to

5

support his inferences of bad faith, bias, and retaliation.” Id.; Crenshaw v. Sup. Ct. of Ind., 170
F.3d 725, 729 (7th Cir. 1999) (same).
Though Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he Knox County Court is a fraud at law,” Compl. 4, and
believes that his arrest was illegal, see, e.g., id. at 3, he alleges no specific facts that would show
that the cases against him are frivolous, were an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, or were
motivated by retaliation or by Plaintiff’s race, sex, or other protected characteristic. And though
Plaintiff has been charged multiple times, the police reports he included with his complaint
suggest the cases arise out of different incidents. See Galesburg Police Department Incident
Report, ECF No. 1 at 24–27 (indicating that Plaintiff was pulled over on July 12, 2023 for failure
to come to a complete stop and then was cited for failing to obey a stop sign, having an expired
driver’s license, transporting alcohol, and possessing cannabis in a motor vehicle); Case Detail
Report, ECF No. 1 at 35 (indicating that Plaintiff was pulled over for having a registration plate
stating “PRIVATE” on October 2, 2023). The complaint does not include any specific facts that
would suggest that the prosecutions against Plaintiff are unjustified or that the multiple charges
are being pursued in an oppressive way. Cf. Collins v. Kendall Cnty., 807 F.2d 95, 99 (7th Cir.
1986) (“Instituting approximately thirty criminal prosecutions over a two-year period does not
constitute bad faith or harassment in and of itself.”).
The complaint does not otherwise show “an extraordinarily pressing need for immediate
equitable relief” either. See FreeEats.com, 502 F.3d at 596–97. To show such a need, a plaintiff
would need to show that no state remedy is available “to meaningfully, timely, and adequately
remedy the alleged constitutional violation” and that he “will suffer great and immediate harm if
the federal court does not intervene.” Id. at 597 (quotation marks omitted). The Court has no

6

reason to think that Plaintiff cannot raise his claims in state court. Younger abstention is
warranted here.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining his current prosecutions, his request is
DISMISSED. Relatedly, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiff’s request for the Court to order the
state of Illinois to change its laws and regulations because the Court does not have the power to
order a state to enact specific legislation; it can only rule on the constitutionality of an existing
law. See Smith & Lee Assocs., Inc. v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781, 797 (6th Cir. 1996); see Mi
Familia Vota v. Abbott, 977 F.3d 461, 470 (5th Cir. 2020) (holding that no “provision in the
Constitution permits a court to dictate to legislative bodies or executives what laws and
regulations they must promulgate”); M.S. v. Brown, 902 F.3d 1076, 1089 (9th Cir. 2018)
(“[P]rinciples of federalism counsel against awarding affirmative injunctive and declaratory
relief that would require state officials to repeal an existing law and enact a new law proposed by
plaintiffs.” (quotation marks omitted)). The Court STAYS the remainder of the case pending
resolution of the criminal cases against Plaintiff because Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. See
Compl. 11.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff Quennel T. Augusta’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED to
the extent it asks for injunctive relief against the following state cases: 2023CF348, 2023CF493,
2023MT254, 2023MT527, 2023MT775, and 2023TR1428. The remainder of the case is
STAYED pending resolution of those cases. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide the Court with
an update on the status of those cases every 60 days. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of
this case. Plaintiff’s first status report is due April 5, 2024. In light of this ruling, the motion to
dismiss, ECF No. 5, is MOOT.

7

Entered this 5th day of February, 2024.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8