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 p rejudice 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)

Download PDF
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?