Aubuchon v. Coffey County Jail

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: Petitioner's motion 3 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this habeas corpus action is granted. The petition is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 07/21/15. Mailed to pro se party John L. Aubuchon by regular mail. (smnd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOHN L AUBUCHON,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO.

15-3100-SAC

COFFEY COUNTY JAIL,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the court on a petition for a writ
of

habeas

corpus

under

28

U.S.C.

§

2241,

filed

pro

se

by

petitioner while confined as a pretrial detainee in the Coffey
County

Jail

in

Burlington,

Kansas.

Petitioner’s

motion

for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment of the
$5.00 filing fee in this habeas corpus action is granted.
BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
Petitioner

cites

his

arrest

on

December

13,

2014,

and

claims he was held thereafter for over 30 days before criminal
charges were filed against him in Coffey County Case No. 15CR10
on January 13, 2015, and counsel appointed.

Petitioner contends

this delay violated his constitutional right to due process, and
states his confinement continues because his bond has been set
too high given his financial resources.
1

Petitioner complains

there has been no action in his criminal case or in response to
his pro se motion to dismiss the criminal charges, and contends
the prosecutor is unlawfully causing this delay in an attempt to
force petitioner to accept a plea agreement.
On these claims petitioner filed the instant habeas action
seeking

dismissal

of

his

Coffey

County

criminal

case.

Coffey County Jail is named as the sole respondent.

The

He also

seeks damages for the loss of his job and property including
four dogs, for hardship on his family, and for medical bills
related

to

pleadings,

his

continued

petitioner

confinement.

asserts

state

In

tort

supplemental

claims

of

false

imprisonment, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and invasion of privacy.
DISCUSSION
Having carefully reviewed the record with a liberal reading
of petitioner’s pro se pleadings, Ledbetter v. City of Topeka,
Kan., 318 F.3d 1183, 1187 (10th Cir.2003), the court finds the
petition

is

subject

to

being

summarily

dismissed

for

the

following reasons.
“Habeas corpus review is available under § 2241 if one is
‘in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
of the United States.’”
F.3d

809,

811

(10th

McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 115

Cir.1997)(quoting
2

§

2241(c)(3)).

Because

petitioner is a pretrial detainee with pending state criminal
charges against him, his petition for habeas corpus relief under
§ 2241 is appropriate.

See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 U.S. F.3d

1227 (10th Cir.2007)(the general grant of habeas authority set
forth

in

28

U.S.C.

§

2241

applies

to

challenges

involving

pretrial detention of a state court defendant); Yellowbear v.
Wyoming

Attorney

General,

525

F.3d

921,

924

(10th

Cir.2008)(pretrial detention can be challenged through a habeas
petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241).
No exhaustion of state court remedies
Petitioner’s attempt to seek federal habeas corpus relief
is

premature.

remedies

is

A

a

petitioner’s

prerequisite

exhaustion

to

seeking

of

other

federal

available

habeas

corpus

relief. Garza v. Davis, 596 F.3d 1198, 1203 (10th Cir.2010).
Here

petitioner’s

documents

make

clear

that

he

has

not

yet

pursued available remedies in the state district and appellate
courts on claims raised in his federal habeas petition.

The

petition should therefore be dismissed without prejudice.
Abstention doctrine bars federal intervention
Additionally,
precludes

this

criminal action.
that

federal

the

court’s

court

finds

intervention

the

abstention

in

petitioner’s

doctrine
pending

In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court held

courts

generally

should
3

not

intervene

in

state

criminal prosecutions begun before institution of a federal suit
in which the state court defendant seeks an order enjoining the
state

court

federal

from

court

proceeding

should

with

abstain

the

action

from

against

enjoining

him.

such

A

state

prosecutions if the state court proceedings: (1) are ongoing,
(2) offer an adequate forum to hear the plaintiff's federal
claims, and (3) implicate important state interests. Id. at 43;
see

Middlesex

County

Ethics

Committee

v.

Association, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
are met in this case.

Garden

State

Bar

These three conditions

Petitioner makes clear that his state

criminal proceeding is ongoing.

The prosecution of a person

accused of violating state law implicates an important state
interest. See, e.g., Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 349 (1975)
(invoking Younger abstention in a case involving a pending state
criminal
courts

prosecution,
to

try

interference).
adequate

noting

state

that

cases

the

doctrine

without

a

permits

federal

state

court’s

And the Kansas courts provide petitioner with an

opportunity

to

present

his

federal

constitutional

claims, such as petitioner’s challenge to the legality of the
search and seizure of his property.
To avoid application of the abstention doctrine, petitioner
must demonstrate “harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state
officials

in

bad

faith

without
4

hope

of

obtaining

a

valid

conviction

and

perhaps

in

other

extraordinary

where irreparable injury can be shown.”
U.S.

82,

85

(1971);

see

Younger

v.

circumstances

Perez v. Ledesma, 401

Harris,

401

U.S.

at

54

(recognizing an exception when the claimant shows “bad faith,
harassment, or any other unusual circumstance that would call
for

equitable

claim

that

relief”).

the

Coffey

Notwithstanding
County

petitioner’s

prosecutor,

judge,

broad

and

even

petitioner’s defense counsel are conspiring to deny petitioner a
timely

and

fair

trial,

the

record

discloses

no

factual

allegations suggesting that petitioner would suffer irreparable
injury

if

forward,

or

the

state

that

the

court

proceedings

criminal

charges

were
were

allowed
brought

to
by

go
the

prosecutor with no hope of a valid conviction merely to harass
him.

The

court

thus

finds

that

all

the

Younger

abstention

conditions are satisfied in this case, and that the petition
should be dismissed without prejudice.
Additional Considerations
The court notes the petition presents additional problems
that would have to be overcome for petitioner to proceed in
habeas corpus.
First, petitioner has not named a proper respondent.

The

Coffee County Jail is not a legal entity that can be sued.

See

Aston v. Cunningham, 216 F.3d 1086, 2000 WL 796086 at *4 n. 3
5

(10th

Cir.2000)

person

or

(unpublished)(“a

legally

created

detention

entity

facility

capable

of

is

being

not

a

sued”).

Instead, petitioner must name the person having custody over
him, 28 U.S.C. § 2242, such as the Coffey County Sheriff.
Second, monetary damages are not recoverable in a habeas
action. McIntosh, 115 F.3d at 812.

In Heck v. Humphrey, 512

U.S. 477 (1994), the Supreme Court held that a civil cause of
action seeking damages for the alleged violation of a prisoner’s
rights

under

the

United

States

Constitution

or

laws

of

the

United States is premature if an award for the plaintiff would
necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence
through

a

direct

appeal,

order

of

expungement,

decree

of

collateral relief, or writ of habeas corpus. Id., 512 U.S. at
486–87.

Heck

applies

when

a

damage

award

would

imply

the

invalidity of pretrial detention, as well as a conviction or
sentence. See e.g.
(10th

Cohen v. Clemens, 321 Fed.Appx. 739, 742

Cir.2009)(unpublished)

(applying

Heck

to

civil

claim

involving pretrial detention).
Third, petitioner’s attempt to seek relief on claims of
false

imprisonment,

infliction

of

emotional

necessarily

fail

because

provide

legal

basis

no

malicious
distress,
these
for

tort

prosecution,

intentional

and

of

actions

obtaining
6

invasion
under

federal

privacy

state

habeas

law

corpus

relief.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)(a writ of habeas corpus

shall not issue unless the prisoner “is in custody in violation
of

the

Constitution

or

laws

or

treaties

of

the

United

States”)(emphasis added).
IT

IS

THEREFORE

BY

THE

COURT

ORDERED

that

petitioner’s

motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) in this
habeas corpus action is granted.
IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

petition

is

dismissed

without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated in Topeka, Kansas on this 21st day of July, 2015.

s/ Sam A. Crow___________
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District Judge

7