Foster (ID 0109640) v. Henderson et al
ORDER ENTERED: The court directs the plaintiff to Show Cause by 12/15/2017 why the court should not take the following actions: abstain pursuant to the Younger doctrine; dismiss without prejudice plaintiff's claims for equitable relief; and stay plaintiff's claims for damages pending the resolution of the state court proceedings. Signed by District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/15/17.Mailed to pro se party Semaj Leonard Foster by regular mail (daw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SEMAJ LEONARD FOSTER,
Case No. 16-3093-SAC
R. ANN HENDERSON and
RYAN W. WALKIEWICZ,
O R D E R
Plaintiff has filed a pro se complaint upon forms for an
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff asserts that his
constitutional rights have been violated during the prosecution
Plaintiff claims that the state court acted without jurisdiction
because of a failure to bring his case to trial within the 180day time period set forth in K.S.A. 22-4303 for the disposition
The court has examined the docket of the Kansas Court of
It appears that plaintiff was convicted and sentenced
in Johnson County District Court, and that he has a pending
appeal before the Kansas Court of Appeals.
monetary damages for the days he has been incarcerated after the
expiration of the alleged deadline for bringing the criminal
case to trial.
He also seeks to have the defendants, who are
prosecuting attorneys, terminated from the state criminal case.
I. Pro se standards
liberally and held to a less stringent standard than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106,
1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
A pro se litigant, however, is not
relieved from following the same rules of procedure as any other
litigant. See Green v. Dorrell, 969 F.2d 915, 917 (10th Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 940 (1993).
A district court
litigant.” Hall, supra. Nor is the court to “supply additional
Whitney v. State of New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 (10th
II. Screening standards
Title 28 United State Code Section 1915A requires the court
complaint is frivolous, malicious or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.
When deciding whether plaintiff’s
contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v.
plaintiff’s well-pled factual allegations as true and views them
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
United States v.
Smith, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir.2009), cert. denied, 558
U.S. 1148 (2010).
III. Younger abstention
doctrine under the following conditions:
First, there must be ongoing state criminal,
civil, or administrative proceedings.
state court must offer an adequate forum to hear the
federal plaintiff’s claims from the federal lawsuit.
Third, the state proceeding must involve important
state interests, matters which traditionally look to
state law for their resolution or implicate separately
articulated state policies.
Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997).
Goings v. Sumner County Dist. Attorney’s Office, 571 Fed.Appx.
634, 638-39 (10th Cir. 2014), the Tenth Circuit made clear that
circumstances are established to overcome the bar of Younger
nonamenability to suit are raised via a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.
The Tenth Circuit acted similarly in Chapman v. Barcus, 372
Fed.Appx. 899, 901-02 (10th Cir. 2010), where it raised Younger
abstention sua sponte in spite of the evident lack of merit in
the appellant’s allegations.
On the face of the pleadings now
before the court, it appears that the vital elements for Younger
abstention may be present.
proceedings offer an adequate forum to hear plaintiff’s claims
because it was not commenced according to the time limits of
Plaintiff also alleges a conflict of interest.
justice systems free from federal interference is one of the
court considering equitable types of relief”).
Although there may be cases where damages claims have been
outcome of the state court proceedings.
D.L. v. Unified School
District No. 497, 392 F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2004) cert.
denied, 544 U.S. 1050 (2005); see also, Allen v. Bd. of Educ.,
should not take the following actions:
abstain pursuant to the
Younger doctrine; dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s claims
for equitable relief; and stay plaintiff’s claims for damages
pending the resolution of the state court proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2017, at Topeka, Kansas.
s/SAM A. CROW
Sam A. Crow, U.S. District Senior Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?