Johnson v. Serrano et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: 1. Johnson's complaint DE 1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. The Court will enter an appropriate judgment. 3. This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 3/27/18.(KSS)cc: COR, Johnson (via US mail)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
NORTHERN DIVISION at ASHLAND
ERIC ANTHONY JOHNSON,

)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)

C. SERRANO, et al.,

)
)

Civil No. 0: 18-31-HRW

)
)

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

*** *** *** ***
Eric Anthony Johnson is an inmate confined at the Boyd County Detention
Center ("BCDC") in Catlettsburg, Kentucky. Johnson has filed a prose civil rights
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. [D. E. No. 1] The Court has granted
Johnson pauper status by prior Order.
The Court must conduct a preliminary review of Johnson's complaint
because he has been granted permission to pay the filing fee in installments and
because he asserts claims against government officials. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2),
1915A. A district court must dismiss any claim that is frivolous or malicious, fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F. 3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). When testing the sufficiency of Johnson's complaint, the Court
affords it a forgiving construction, accepting as true all non-conclusory factual

allegations and liberally construing its legal claims in the plaintiff's favor. Davis v.
Prison Health Servs., 679 F.3d 433, 437-38 (6th Cir. 2012).

Johnson alleges that in June 2015, two bail bondsman attempted to
apprehend him at a home in Ashland, Kentucky. He hit one of them with a glass
ashtray (in self-defense, he contends) before fleeing the house. [D. E. No. 1 at 2]
Johnson states that in October 2018 - October 2017, the Court assumes - he was
arrested in Ohio for driving on a suspended license.

Two weeks later he was

extradited to Boyd County, Kentucky pursuant to a Kentucky warrant on a charge
of second degree assault, apparently arising out of his altercation with the bail
bondsmen. Id. at 2.
Johnson alleges that Ashland police officer C. Serrano included materially
false statements and omissions in the June 2015 warrant request because the bail
bondsmen acted illegally and he acted in self-defense. [D. E. No. 1 at 2-3] He
further alleges that Commonwealth Attorney Rhonda Copley acted improperly for
the same reasons when she obtained an indictment against him on this charge.
Finally, Johnson alleges that the bail bondsmen admitted to Sergeant T. Renfro that
they intended to take him across state lines to face a misdemeanor charge. Id. at 34. Johnson contends that the defendants' actions constituted false arrest, malicious
prosecution, and abuse of process, and seeks damages against each of the
defendants. [D. E. No. I at 1, 4]
2

The Court has thoroughly reviewed the complaint, but concludes that it must
be dismissed, without prejudice to Johnson's right to file a new case at the
appropriate time. This is so because the criminal charges about which Johnson
complains are still pending against him in the Circuit Court of Boyd County,
Kentucky, with a pretrial conference set in that case on March 23, 2018.
Commonwealth v. Johnson, No. 18-CR-0004 (Boyd. Cir. Ct. 2018). 1 Where

... a plaintiff files a false arrest claim before he has been convicted (or
files any other claim related to rulings that will likely be made in a
pending or anticipated criminal trial), it is within the power of the
district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil
action until the criminal case or the likelihood of a criminal case is
ended. ... If the plaintiff is ultimately convicted, and if the stayed civil
suit would impugn that conviction, [Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994)] will require dismissal; otherwise, the civil action will proceed,
absent some other bar to suit.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393 (2007); see also Quakenbush v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 517 U.S. 706, 730 (1996). Similarly, dismissal of the criminal charges is a

prerequisite to a malicious prosecution claim, which requires the plaintiff to
establish the favorable termination of the prosecution against him.

Johnson v.

Moseley, 790 F. 3d 649, 654 (6th Cir. 2015). Therefore, at a minimum, Johnson's

See https://kcoj .kycourts.net/CourtNet/Search/CaseAtAGlance?county=O 1O&court=1 &
division=CI&caseNumber=18-CR-00004&caseTypeCode=CR&client id=O (last visited on
The Court takes judicial notice of undisputed information contained on
March 13, 2018).
government websites, Demis v. Sniezek, 558 F. 3d 508, 513 n.2 (6th Cir. 2009), and may
consider such information when determining whether a claim must be dismissed for failure to
state a claim, Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F. 3d 1015, 1017-18 (5th Cir. 1996).
3

claims regarding his prosecution would have to be stayed pending the outcome of
his state court criminal proceedings.
But where, as here, Johnson's claims directly challenge the viability of the
criminal prosecution against him, abstention is warranted. In Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court held that federal courts should not exercise
jurisdiction over civil matters in any fashion that would interfere with ongoing
state criminal prosecutions absent truly extraordinary circumstances. Id. at 44. The
rule is "designed to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by
federal courts, particularly where the party to the federal case may fully litigate his
claim before the state court." Zalman v. Armstrong, 802 F.2d 199, 205 (6th Cir.
1986). To determine whether Younger abstention is required, a court considers
whether ( 1) a state proceeding is pending at the time the federal action is initiated;
(2) an adequate opportunity is provided to raise the constitutional claims in state
court; and (3) there are extraordinary circumstances that nevertheless warrant
federal intervention. Id.
The criminal charges against Johnson remam pending, and he has not
suggested that the state court would not give full and fair consideration to his
constitutional claims as part of a defense to the charges against him. Due respect
for the legal process in state courts precludes any presumption that state courts are
unable or unwilling to safeguard federal constitutional rights. Middlesex County
4

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982). Nothing in
the complaint indicates the presence of any factor which "render[ s] the state court
incapable of fairly and fully adjudicating the federal issues before it" as required to
satisfy the "extraordinary circumstances" exception. See Kugler v. Helfant, 42 l
U.S. 117, 124 (1975).

Younger

abstention

is

therefore

warranted

and

appropriate with respect to Johnson's allegations regarding alleged constitutional
infirmities in his prosecution. Tindall v. Wayne County Friend of the Court, 269
F.3d 533, 538 (6th Cir. 2001) (Younger abstention counsels federal court to refrain
from adjudicating matter otherwise properly before it in deference to ongoing state
criminal proceedings).
Having dismissed all of the federal claims over which this Court possesses
original subject matter jurisdiction upon initial screening, the Court will dismiss
the pendent state law claim for abuse of process without prejudice pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1367(c).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1.

Johnson's complaint [D. E. No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2.

The Court will enter an appropriate judgment.

3.

This matter is STRICKEN from the active docket.

This theJf~ of March, 2018.

@
5

Signed By:

Heney R. Wilhoit. Jr.
United Stat•• Dlatrlct Judge