Evanish v. Frost et al

Filing 5

OPINION and ORDER Summarily Dismissing the Case and Denying Leave to Appeal Informa Pauperis Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (LWag)

Case 3:20-cv-13098-RHC-APP ECF No. 5, PageID.20 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
______________________________________________________________________
MARQUE RAYMONT EVANISH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 20-13098

ROBERT FROST and
KAREN HANSON,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING THIS CASE AND DENYING
LEAVE TO APPEAL THIS DECISION IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Plaintiff Marque Raymont Evanish, a pretrial detainee incarcerated at the
Genesee County Jail, has filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The
court granted Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), and he is
proceeding without prepayment of the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). After
careful consideration of the complaint, the court will summarily dismiss this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is facing charges of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping,
torture, unlawful imprisonment, and manufacture of methamphetamine in the Genesee
Circuit Court. According to the state court website, Plaintiff was bound over for trial on
October 26, 2020, Plaintiff requested a jury trial, and the next pretrial hearing is
scheduled for January 7, 2021. Case Register of Actions, 7th Judicial Circuit Court,
http://www.co.genesee.mi.us/roaccsinq/Default.aspx (last visited Jan. 4, 2021). Without
any factual elaboration, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants Detective Robert Frost and
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Karen R. Hanson are maliciously prosecuting him based

Case 3:20-cv-13098-RHC-APP ECF No. 5, PageID.21 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 4

on false factual allegations. (ECF No. 1, PageID.5, 7.) The complaint seeks damages
for mental distress, financial loss, and physical endangerment. (Id., PageID.8.)
II. STANDARD
Civil complaints filed by a pro se prisoner are subject to the screening
requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Brown v. Bargery, 207 F.3d 863, 866 (6th Cir.
2000). Section 1915(e)(2) requires district courts to screen and to dismiss complaints
that are frivolous, fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that seek
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2); McGore v. Wigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1997). A complaint is
frivolous and subject to sua sponte dismissal under § 1915(e) if it lacks an arguable
basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A plaintiff fails
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, when, construing the complaint in a
light most favorable to the plaintiff and accepting all the factual allegations as true, the
plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support if his claims that would entitle
him to relief. Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Cline v.
Rogers, 87 F.3d 176, 179 (6th Cir. 1996); Wright v. MetroHealth Med. Ctr., 58 F.3d
1130, 1138 (6th Cir. 1995).
III. DISCUSSION
In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court “held that absent
extraordinary circumstances federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal
prosecutions.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S.
350, 364 (1989). “Younger abstention requires the federal court to defer to the state
proceeding.” Coles v. Granville, 448 F.3d 853, 865 (6th Cir. 2006). The Sixth Circuit has

2

Case 3:20-cv-13098-RHC-APP ECF No. 5, PageID.22 Filed 01/06/21 Page 3 of 4

held that exercise of Younger abstention is appropriate “when the state proceeding (1)
is currently pending, (2) involves an important state interest, and (3) affords the plaintiff
an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims.” Id. at 865. If the three Younger
criteria are satisfied, the court should abstain from interfering “unless there is a showing
of bad faith, harassment, or another extraordinary circumstance that makes abstention
inappropriate.” Graves v. Mahoning Cty., 534 F. App’x 399, 406 (6th Cir. 2013).
All three Younger factors require abstention in this case. Plaintiff’s state court
criminal case is pending, satisfying the first factor of the abstention doctrine. See Coles,
448 F.3d at 865. To determine the substantiality of the government interest in the
pending proceeding, “[courts] do not look narrowly to its interest in the outcome of the
particular case . . . [r]ather, [courts look to] the importance of the generic proceedings to
the State.” New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 491 U.S. at 365. It is well-established that
Michigan has an interest in enforcing its criminal laws. Aaron v. O’Connor, 914 F.3d
1010, 1016 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting Doe v. Univ. of Ky., 860 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir.
2017)) (Younger abstention is appropriate “when there is an ongoing state criminal
prosecution.”). The second factor is satisfied. See Coles, 448 F.3d at 865. Finally, the
third factor is met because Plaintiff will have an adequate opportunity in state court to
raise any claims challenging Defendants’ allegedly false accusations. See Coles, 448
F.3d at 865.
No exception to the Younger doctrine applies. See Graves, 534 F. App’x at 406.
Plaintiff does not allege unusual or extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant
federal intervention.

3

Case 3:20-cv-13098-RHC-APP ECF No. 5, PageID.23 Filed 01/06/21 Page 4 of 4

IV. CONCLUSION
The court will abstain under the Younger doctrine from adjudicating this dispute.
The complaint will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). Plaintiff is denied leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis
because the court discerns no good-faith basis for such an appeal. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3); McGore, 114 F.3d at 611. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that leave to appeal this decision in forma pauperis
is DENIED.
s/Robert H. Cleland
/
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: January 5, 2021
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record
on this date, January 5, 2021, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
[phone]
S:\Cleland\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\20-13098.EVANISH.SummaryDismissal.BB.RMK.docx

4

/