Wallingford v. Dekede et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The petition is dismissed and all relief is denied. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 04/28/21. Mailed to pro se party John A. Wallingford by regular mail. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOHN A. WALLINGFORD,
CASE NO. 21-3112-SAC
ANDY DEKEDE, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a petition for habeas corpus filed by a pretrial
detainee. Petitioner proceeds pro se, and his fee status is pending.
The court liberally construes this matter as a petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th
Cir. 2007) (stating that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “is the proper avenue by
which to challenge pretrial detention.”).
Petitioner is in pretrial custody at the Leavenworth County
Jail. He complains that he is unlawfully detained and that the
pending charges against him are fabricated and the product of
malicious prosecution. He also complains that the district court
appointed standby counsel. As relief, he asks this court to appoint
petition. In the alternative, he asks the court to find malicious
prosecution and order his release.
This matter is governed by Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241. Under Rule 4, the court is required to undertake a
preliminary review of the petition, and “[i]f it plainly appears
from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief ... the judge must dismiss the
petition.” Habeas Corpus Rule 4.
A court may grant relief under § 2241 where the petitioner “is
in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
prosecution, the court must consider whether he has shown any
intervention he seeks. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391-392
(1918) (“It is well settled that in the absence of exceptional
circumstances in criminal cases the regular judicial procedure
should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in
advance of a trial.”).
Likewise, the Supreme Court has held that a federal court
should not intervene in pending state criminal prosecutions absent
“irreparable injury” that “is both great and immediate.” Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Under the Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court must abstain
from exercising jurisdiction when the following three conditions
administrative proceeding, (2) the state court provides an adequate
forum to hear the claims raised in the federal complaint, and (3)
the state proceedings ‘involve important state interests, matters
which traditionally look to state law for their resolution or
implicate separately articulated state policies.’” Amantullah v.
Colo. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999)
(quoting Taylor v.
1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1005 (1998)). If these conditions are
abstain.” Crown Point I, LLC v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass'n,
319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (citing Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v.
Okla., 874 F.2d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 1989)).
In this case, the first condition is met because petitioner
is the subject of ongoing state criminal proceedings. The second
condition also is met is met because the Kansas courts provide
plaintiff with an adequate forum to litigate his constitutional
remedies. See Capps v. Sullivan, 13 F.3d 350, 354 n.2 (10th Cir.
1993) (“[F]ederal courts should abstain from the exercise of ...
jurisdiction if the issues raised ... may be resolved either by
trial on the merits in state court or by other (available) state
because Kansas has an important interest in enforcing its criminal
Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[S]tate control over
criminal justice [is] a lynchpin in a unique balance of interests”
described as “Our Federalism.”) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44).
Plaintiff's bare assertion that the criminal charges against him
are fabricated should be resolved in the state courts and is
insufficient to trigger any of the Younger exceptions.
dismissed and all relief is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 28th day of April, 2021, at Topeka, Kansas.
S/ Sam A. Crow
SAM A. CROW
U.S. Senior District 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?