Santos v. Lowell Superior Court

Filing 5

District Judge Leo T. Sorokin: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the ground of Younger abstention. [Copy of order mailed to plaintiff on 5/11/2018.](PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ANGEL SANTOS,
Plaintiff,

v.

LOWELL SUPERIOR COURT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
18-10887-LTS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
May 10, 2018
SOROKIN, D.J.
On May 4, 208, pro se plaintiff Angel Santos (“Santos”), who is confined at the Old
Colony Correctional Center, Souza-Baranowski Correctional Center, filed a “Motion for Federal
Interference.” Santos claims that he is receiving ineffective assistance of counsel from the
criminal defense attorney currently representing him in a direct appeal.
The Court has an obligation to inquire into its own jurisdiction. See McCulloch v. Velez,
364 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004). Even where subject matter jurisdiction exists, the Court must
consider whether it should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction so that a state court may
resolve some or all of the dispute. “Abstention is a devise designed to facilitate the side-by-side
operation of federal and state courts, balancing their respective interests in the spirit of comity.”
Coggeshall v. Mass. Bd. of Registration of Psychologists, 604 F.3d 658, 664 (1st Cir. 2010).
“Except in the most extraordinary cases, a federal court must presume that state courts,
consistent with the imperatives of the Supremacy Clause, see U.S. Const. art. VI, are fully
competent to adjudicate federal constitutional and statutory claims properly presented by the

parties.” Casa Marie, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 988 F.2d 252, 262 (1st Cir.1993) (footnote omitted).
Under the doctrine of Younger abstention, federal courts have long recognized ‘the fundamental
policy against federal interference with state criminal proceedings.’” In re Justices of Superior
Court Dept. of Mass. Trial Court, 218 F.3d 11, 16 (1st Cir. 2000) (quoting Younger v. Harris,
401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971)). Younger abstention is even appropriate where litigants “claim
violations of important federal rights,” id. at 17, as long as the federal claims can be “raised and
resolved somewhere in the state process” Maymó-Meléndez v. Álvarez-Ramírez, 364 F.3d 27,
36 (1st Cir. 2004) (emphasis added).
Here, the Court would “needlessly inject” itself in a pending state criminal proceeding if
it were examine the sufficiency of counsel’s representation of Santos. The Court has no reason
to believe that Santos does not or will not have an opportunity to raise all pertinent issues within
the state court system.
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE on the ground of
Younger abstention.
SO ORDERED.

/s/ Leo T. Sorokin
United States District Judge

2