Karim v. Elliott et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ENTERED: The Petition is dismissed without prejudice. No certificate of appealability will issue. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 9/7/2021. Mailed to pro se party Fadl Asim Karim by regular mail. (jal)
Case 5:21-cv-03180-SAC Document 4 Filed 09/07/21 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
FADL ASIM KARIM,
CASE NO. 21-3180-SAC
JOSHUA ELLIOTT, et al.,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s response to
the Court’s Notice and Order to Show Cause (NOSC) issued August 18,
2021. After reviewing the response (Doc. 3), the Court will dismiss
the action without prejudice pursuant to the abstention doctrine
set forth in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971).
On August 16, 2021, Petitioner filed his petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. His asserted grounds
for relief involve alleged unconstitutional acts by the Respondents
during parole revocation proceedings in state court. Petitioner
asks this Court to quash the parole violation warrant, dismiss the
pending parole violation proceedings, and order “that no parole
violation warrant or charges be brought against” Petitioner unless
he is proven guilty of the violations. (Doc. 1.)
As required by Habeas Corpus Rule 4, the Court undertook a
preliminary review of the petition and issued the NOSC, pointing
out that it appeared that the Court must abstain from intervening
in the state parole proceedings. (Doc. 2.) Under Younger, federal
courts must abstain when “(1) the state proceedings are ongoing;
Case 5:21-cv-03180-SAC Document 4 Filed 09/07/21 Page 2 of 3
(2) the state proceedings implicate important state interests; and
(3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to present
the federal constitutional challenges.” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122
F.3d 885, 889
(10th Cir. 1997).
“Younger abstention is ‘non-
discretionary . . . absent extraordinary circumstances,’ if the
three conditions are indeed satisfied.” Brown ex rel. Brown v. Day,
555 F.3d 882, 888 (10th Cir. 2009) (quoting Amanatullah v. Co. Bd.
of Med. Examiners, 187 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir. 1999)).
The NOSC concluded that the three conditions in Younger are
alleged parole violation are ongoing, the State of Kansas has an
important interest in addressing and resolving alleged violations
opportunity for Petitioner to present his challenges, including his
Petitioner to show cause why this matter should not be summarily
dismissed without prejudice under Younger. (Doc. 2.)
Petitioner’s response reasserts the merits of the petition. It
alleges the facts underlying Petitioner’s claims and a timeline of
the relevant events. (Doc. 3, p. 1-5.) The response concludes by
noting the stress Petitioner and Petitioner’s family have suffered
from the ongoing parole violation proceedings. Id. at 5. Attached
to the response are (1) communications between Petitioner’s parole
officer and an individual who contacted the parole officer on
Petitioner’s behalf; (2) statements from that individual detailing
her efforts to gather information about the proceedings involving
Petitioner; (3) Kansas Department of Corrections online records
related to Petitioner; and (4) a receipt. (Doc. 3-1.)
Case 5:21-cv-03180-SAC Document 4 Filed 09/07/21 Page 3 of 3
The response does not, however, assert that any of the three
circumstances that require abstention under Younger do not exist.
See Winn v. Cook, 945 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2019) (identifying
the three conditions for Younger abstention). And when the three
conditions coexist, abstention is mandatory. See Brown, 555 F.3d at
The Court will therefore dismiss this matter without prejudice
pursuant to the Younger doctrine. The Court also concludes that its
procedural ruling in this matter is not subject to debate among
appealability. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without
prejudice. No certificate of appealability will issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This 7th day of September, 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?