GETHERS et al v. STATE OF MAINE et al
Filing
4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 1 Complaint filed by ERROLL GETHERS. Objections to R&R due by 7/16/2020. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN C. NIVISON. (MFS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ERROLL GETHERS,
Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF MAINE, et al.,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:20-cv-00218-DBH
RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER REVIEW
OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, an inmate at the Cumberland County Jail, has filed a complaint pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking relief from the bail established in state court. (Complaint, ECF No.
1.) Plaintiff has named as defendants the State of Maine, a district attorney, and two assistant
district attorneys.
Because Plaintiff is “a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity,” Plaintiff’s complaint is subject to a review “before
docketing, if feasible or … as soon as practicable after docketing.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In
addition, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which
application the Court granted. (ECF No. 3.) In accordance with the in forma pauperis
statute, a preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
After a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and
1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
1
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, “the court shall dismiss the case at any
time if the court determines,” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to
state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals
[under § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare
prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.”
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
Plaintiff’s complaint is also subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act because Plaintiff currently is incarcerated and seeks redress from governmental entities
and officers. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (c). The § 1915A screening requires courts to
“identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the
complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim …; or (2) seeks monetary relief
from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted,
courts must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all
reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st
Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not
plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). “The relevant question ... in assessing plausibility is
not whether the complaint makes any particular factual allegations but, rather, whether ‘the
complaint warrant[s] dismissal because it failed in toto to render plaintiffs’ entitlement to
2
relief plausible.’” Rodríguez–Reyes v. Molina–Rodríguez, 711 F.3d 49, 55 (1st Cir. 2013)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 569 n. 14).
Although a pro se plaintiff’s complaint is subject to “less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), the
complaint may not consist entirely of “conclusory allegations that merely parrot the relevant
legal standard,” Young v. Wells Fargo, N.A., 717 F.3d 224, 231 (1st Cir. 2013). See also
Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980) (explaining that the liberal standard
applied to the pleadings of pro se plaintiffs “is not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required
to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim”).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that he is being held on “excessive bail” and seeks a “reasonable
bail.” (Complaint at 3.) Plaintiff essentially asks the Court to review the bail set by the state
court.
To the extent Plaintiff seeks to assert a habeas corpus petition to secure his release
from pretrial detention, and to the extent Plaintiff requests injunctive relief against the district
attorney through a civil rights claim, Plaintiff’s complaint implicates the doctrine of
abstention described in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), which calls for federal courts
to decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the plaintiff/petitioner seeks relief from ongoing
state criminal proceedings. See In re Justices of Superior Court Dept. of Mass. Trial Court,
218 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2000) (“The federal courts have long recognized the ‘fundamental
policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.’” (quoting Younger, 401
3
U.S. at 46)). Under Younger, federal courts must abstain from interfering in state court
proceedings “when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer
irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” 401 U.S. at 43 – 44.1
The elements of mandatory abstention have been identified as the following: “(1) the
[state] proceedings are judicial (as opposed to legislative) in nature; (2) they implicate
important state interests; and (3) they provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal
constitutional challenges.” Bettencourt v. Bd. of Registration in Med. of Commonwealth of
Mass., 904 F.2d 772, 777 (1st Cir. 1990). The state court criminal proceeding in which
Plaintiff is involved is judicial in nature, implicates important state interests associated with
the State’s administration of its laws, affords Plaintiff adequate opportunity to challenge the
charges on any constitutional ground he can identify, and allows Plaintiff to advocate for
pretrial release on the same grounds he would advance in this Court. Abstention, therefore,
is presumptively appropriate. Indeed, “[c]ourts have consistently applied the Younger
doctrine to dismiss habeas claims by pretrial detainees based on excessive bail, claims of
actual innocence, or due process violations, absent bad faith, harassment, or [other]
extraordinary circumstances.” Enwonwu v. Mass. Superior Court, Fall River, No. 1:12-cv10703, 2012 WL 1802056, at *3 n. 7 (D. Mass. May 16, 2012). In this case, Plaintiff has not
1
Injunctive relief may be awarded against prosecutorial officials where the plaintiff challenges the
constitutionality of a statute imposing “immense” liability, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 145 (1908), because
a plaintiff’s access to a federal remedy should not be conditioned on first hazarding such liability in a state
tribunal. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992). Plaintiff’s allegations would not
support injunctive relief on this basis.
4
alleged any facts that would constitute the extraordinary circumstances necessary to
overcome the presumption in favor of abstention. Dismissal, therefore, is appropriate.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, after a review of Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen (14)
days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to
de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 2nd day of July, 2020.
5
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?