Gibbs v. State Commissioner #2124

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 11/15/2013. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m Plaintiff & PD Tywang 11/15/13)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
CHRISTOPHER GIBBS, JR. # 20130737
Plaintiff,
v
STATE COMMISSIONER, # 2124
Defendant

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***

Civil Action No. PWG-13-3l08

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court for preliminary screening is Christopher Gibbs, Jr.' s complaint against
"State Commissioner # 2124." ECF No.1.

Gibbs alleges that on September 10,2013, "County

Commissioner ID # 2124 denied me the right to have counsel present at my initial appearance."
ECF NO.1.

I

As redress, he asks for unspecified "injunctive declaratory relief."

Gibbs has not paid the filing fee, but instead has filed a motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, ECF No.2, which shall be granted. Title 28 U.S.C. ~~ 1915 and 19l5A permit
an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the filing fee. To
protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute requires a court to dismiss any case
that "fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C.

~S 19l5(e)(2)(B)(ii)

and

19l5A(b)(l).
This court is mindful of its obligation to construe liberally the pleadings of pro se
litigants such as Gibbs. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 8 9, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se
complaint, a plaintiffs allegations are assumed to be true. Id. at 93 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007». Nonetheless, liberal construction does not mean that I
1 Information accessed on the Maryland Judiciary case search website indicates Gibbs is charged with second-degree
burglary and related offenses in the Circuit Court for Wicomico County in Case No. 22K13000709, and is
represented by counsel from the Office of the Public Defender. See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/
inquiry/inquiry Search.jis.

can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts which set forth a claim cognizable in a
federal district court. See Weller v. Dep't o/Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990).
To the extent Gibbs asks for federal intervention in his ongoing criminal proceedings, his
claim fails. Absent extraordinary circumstances not alleged here, federal courts may not interfere
with pending state criminal proceedings, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971), and
federal district courts should abstain from constitutional challenges to state judicial proceedings
if the federal claims could be presented in the ongoing state judicial proceeding. See Cinema
Blue o/Charlotte, Inc. v. Gilchrist, 887 F.2d 49,52-53

(4th Cir.1989).

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has recognized that Younger
abstention is appropriate

"in those cases in which (1) there is an ongoing state judicial

proceeding, (2) the proceeding implicates important state interest, and (3) there is an adequate
opportunity

to present the federal claims in the state proceeding."

Employers

Resource

Management Co., Inc. v. Shannon, 65 F.3d 1126, 1134 (4th Cir. 1995). Conversely, Younger
abstention is not applied where "(1) there is a showing of bad faith or harassment by state
officials responsible

for the prosecution;

(2) the state law to be applied in the criminal

proceeding is flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions; or (3) other
extraordinary circumstances exist that present a threat of immediate and irreparable injury."
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 44 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted).
To prevail under the bad faith exception, a litigant must show "a prosecution has been
brought without a reasonable expectation of obtaining a valid conviction." Suggs v. Brannon,
804 F.2d 274,278 (4th Cir. 1986). "[1]t is the plaintiff's 'heavy burden' to overcome the bar of
Younger abstention by setting forth more than mere allegations of bad faith or harassment."
Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 890 (10th Cir. 1997).

2

To the extent that Gibbs claims his state criminal proceedings violate his constitutional
rights, "Congress and the federal courts have consistently recognized that federal courts should
permit state courts to try state cases, and that, where constitutional issues arise, state court judges
are fully competent to handle them subject to Supreme Court review." Bonner v. Circuit Ct. of
St. Louis, 526 F.2d 1331,1336 (8th Cir. 1975).2
I find that the Younger abstention
proceedings are ongoing.
important state interest.

doctrine applies in this case.

First, criminal

Second, a pending state criminal proceeding clearly implicates an
Third, Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel in the state criminal

action, has the opportunity to present his claims to the state court. Lastly, the allegation that
Gibbs was not provided counsel during his initial appearance before a court commissioner is
insufficient to demonstrate bad faith.
For these reasons, this case will be dismissed without prejudice and this case closed by
separate Order to follow.

Paul
. Grimm
United States District Judge

Gibbs may pursue redress in the state courts of Maryland as appropriate.
regard to the merits of his claims.

2

3

This Court expresses no opinion in