Hambright v. Kansas, State of
Filing
5
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ENTERED: Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. #4 ) is granted. Petitioner is directed to show cause, in writing, on or before December 20, 2021, why this matter should not be dismissed without prejudice under the abstention doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Royall and Younger. Signed by U.S. Senior District Judge Sam A. Crow on 11/19/21. Mailed to pro se party Gerald D. Hambright by regular mail. (smnd) Modified text to correct order type on 11/19/2021. (smnd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GERALD D. HAMBRIGHT,
Petitioner,
v.
CASE NO. 21-3249-SAC
STATE OF KANSAS,
Respondent.
NOTICE AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, is a
pretrial detainee being held at the Sedgwick County Adult Detention
Facility facing state criminal charges. This matter is governed by
Habeas Corpus Rule 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Rule 4 requires the Court
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. The Court has conducted
a preliminary review of the petition and will direct Petitioner to
show cause, in writing, why this action should not be dismissed.
Petitioner filed this petition on October 28, 2021, and was
notified that he needed to resubmit his petition upon court-approved
forms, in compliance with Local Rule 9.1(a), and he needed to either
pay the statutory filing fee of $5 of submit a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis. (Doc. 2.) Petitioner filed his petition on a courtapproved form (Doc. 3) and his motion to proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 4) on November 18, 2021. The motion to proceed in forma
pauperis is granted.
A review of the petition shows that this matter appears subject
to dismissal under the abstention doctrine set out in Ex Parte
Royall, 117 U.S. 241 (1886), and Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46
(1971). As explained in Petitioner’s previous § 2241 actions 1,
principles of comity dictate that absent unusual circumstances, a
federal
court
proceedings
is
unless
not
to
intervene
“irreparable
in
ongoing
injury”
is
state
“both
criminal
great
and
immediate.” See Younger, 401 U.S. at 46. Federal courts must abstain
when
“(1)
the
state
proceedings
are
ongoing;
(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). Where the three circumstances coexist, abstention
is mandatory unless extraordinary circumstances are present. 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 three Younger circumstances are present here:
(1) the
Sedgwick County criminal case against Petitioner appears to be
ongoing, the State of Kansas has an important interest in charging
the
violation
of
Kansas
laws,
and
the
state
courts
provide
Petitioner the opportunity to present his claims, whether through
pre-trial motions, during trial, on direct appeal if Petitioner is
Most of the grounds for relief and the relief sought in the amended petition
are largely identical to those Petitioner sought in two previous § 2241 petitions
filed in this Court challenging his pretrial detention. See Hambright v. Kansas,
Case No. 21-cv-3045-SAC (D. Kan. 2021), and Hambright v. Kansas, Case No. 20-cv3294 (D. Kan. 2020). Both of these actions were dismissed in accordance with the
Younger doctrine. Petitioner is hereby advised that “[r]epetitious litigation of
virtually identical causes of action may be dismissed . . . as frivolous or
malicious.” Childs v. Miller, 713 F.3d 1262, 1265 (10th Cir. 2013).
1
convicted, or through post-conviction proceedings. Although “[t]he
Younger abstention doctrine does not apply ‘in case of proven
harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad
faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in
other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be
shown,’” a petitioner asserting such circumstances must make “‘more
than mere allegations of bad faith or harassment.’” Amanatullah,
187 F.3d at 1165.
Similarly, nearly 100 years before Younger, the United States
Supreme Court recognized the importance of federal courts declining
to interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings. In Ex Parte
Royall, the United States Supreme Court described some very limited
circumstances in which such intervention might be proper, such as
when the individual is in custody for an allegedly criminal act
done as required by federal law or federal court order, when the
individual is a citizen of a foreign country and is in state custody
for an allegedly criminal act done under the authority of that
foreign country, when the matter is urgent and involves the United
States’ relations with foreign nations, or when there is some reason
why the state court may not resolve the constitutional question in
the first instance. 117 U.S. at 251-52. Otherwise, federal courts’
non-interference with state courts “is a principle of right and
law, and therefore of necessity.” Id. at 252.
The petition in this matter does not allege the type of
circumstances under which Ex Parte Royall allows federal-court
intervention. Petitioner does not allege that the acts for which
the State of Kansas is charging him were done under the authority
of a federal law or a foreign government, nor does this case involve
foreign relations or present any indication that the State of Kansas
should
not
be
allowed
to
resolve
Petitioner’s
constitutional
claims. Thus, it appears that Ex Parte Royall and Younger require
this Court to decline to interfere in the ongoing state court
proceedings Petitioner challenges in this matter.
Petitioner is therefore directed to show cause, in writing, on
or before December 20, 2021, why this matter should not be summarily
dismissed without prejudice under Ex Parte Royall and Younger. The
failure to file a timely response will result in this matter being
dismissed without further prior notice to Petitioner.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner is directed to show
cause, in writing, on or before December 20, 2021, why this matter
should not be dismissed without prejudice under the abstention
doctrine set forth in Ex Parte Royall and Younger.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
This 19th day of November, 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?