Sproles v. Kreuger et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A certificate of appealability is DENIED Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 12/20/2017. Mailed to Sproles (TAG)

FILED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DEC 2 0 2017
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA

Cte!\<, U,S Distnct Coun
District Of Montana
BUTTE DIVISION
Great Falls
CLINTON SPROLES,

CV-17-88-BU-BMM-JCL

Petitioner,

v.
KURT KREUGER, KELLI FIVEY,

GEORGE SKULETlCH, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Respondents.

Petitioner Clinton Sproles has applied for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.c. § 2254. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch issued Findings
and Recommendations in this matter on November 28,2017. (Doc. 4.) Judge
Lynch recommended that the Court dismiss Sproles' petition without prejudice due
to the availability of state remedies and the Younger abstention doctrine. Id. at 4.
The Court reviews de novo findings and recommendations to which
objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(I)(C). Portions of findings and
recommendations to which no party specifically objects are reviewed for clear
error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,
1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Where a party's objections, however, constitute perfunctory

I

responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a relitigation of the
same arguments set forth in the original response, the Court will review for clear
error the applicable portions of the findings and recommendations. Rosling v.

Kirkegard, 2014 WL 693315 *3 (D. Mont. Feb. 21, 2014) (internal citations
omitted).
Sproles filed an objection. (Doc. 5.) The document contained the same
assertions included in the original petition regarding the length of time Sproles has
been detained pending sentencing. (Doc. 5.) Judge Lynch considered these
arguments in making his recommendation to the Court. Thus, the Court finds no
specific objections that are not an attempt to rehash the same arguments, and will
review the Findings and Recommendations for clear error.

I.

BACKGROUND

Sproles challenges his detention pending sentencing stemming from a felony
Driving Under the Influence charge brought in Montana's Second Judicial District
Court, Silver Bow County. (Doc. 1 at 5.) Sproles pleaded guilty to the DUI charge
on April 6, 2017. (Doc. 1 at 4.) After Sproles entered his plea, the County
Attorney's office filed a notice seeking enhanced penalties by designating Sproles
as a Persistent Felony Offender. (Doc. I at 5.)
Sproles' attorney filed a motion to dismiss the Persistent Felony Offender
designation. (Doc. 4 at 2.) Sproles also filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas
2

corpus with the Montana Supreme Court. (Doc. 1 at 4.) The Montana Supreme
Court denied Sproles' petition on October 17, 2017. Sproles v. BSB Detention

Center, No. OP 17-0569, Or. at 1. The Court found that Sproles was not eligible
for habeas relief because the matter was still pending in District Court. [d. at 2.
Sproles has yet to be sentenced, and the District Court has yet to rule on the motion
to dismiss. [d. at 1. Once sentenced, Sproles may redress his grievances by direct
appeal. [d. at 2.
The District Court has not yet ruled on Sproles' motion to dismiss the
Persistent Felony Offender designation. (Doc. 4 at 2.) The District Court has not
sentenced Sproles. (Doc. 4 at 2.)

II.

DISCUSSION

Sproles claims that he has been detained pending sentencing for an
unreasonable amount of time, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to
due process. (Doc. 1 at 3.) He also argues that the application of the Persistent
Felony Offender designation after his guilty plea constituted a due process
violation. (Doc. 1 at 2.) Sproles seeks dismissal of all state charges. (Doc. 1 at 7.)
Judge Lynch recommends that the Court dismiss Sproles' petition without
prejudice due to the availability of state remedies and the Younger abstention
doctrine. (Doc. 4 at 4.)

3

Congress has prohibited federal courts from granting a writ of habeas corpus
where the applicant has not "exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the
state." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A). The Montana Supreme Court held that Sproles
has not exhausted the remedies available to him. Sproles v. BSB Detention Center,
No.OP 17-0569, Or. at 2. The Court agrees with Judge Lynch's conclusion that
Sproles is thus ineligible for federal habeas relief. (Doc. 4 at 5.) Sproles may re-file
upon conclusion of the state proceedings.
Sproles' claims further concern and challenge pending state court criminal
proceedings. The Supreme Court's decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37
(1971) directs federal courts to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory
relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. Id. at 40-41. A
federal court must abstain under Younger ifthe following four requirements are
met: (1) a state initiated proceeding is ongoing; (2) the state judicial proceeding
implicates important state interests; (3) the federal plaintiff is not barred from
litigating federal constitutional issues in the state proceeding; and (4) the federal
court action would enjoin the state proceeding or have the practical effect of doing
so. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004).
The Court agrees with Judge Lynch's finding that all elements of Younger
abstention are established in this case. First, there exists an ongoing criminal action
against Sproles in state court. Second, the criminal proceeding implicates
4

important state interests. The State ofMontana has a significant state interest in
prosecuting conduct that constitutes a criminal offense under Montana law. Third,
Sproles will have an adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues in
the state court proceeding. Fourth, any decision by this Court as to whether
Sproles' claims constitute due process violations would unduly interfere with the
state criminal proceeding. This Court must therefore abstain from adjudicating
Sproles' claims for injunctive relief.
Ill.

ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. 4) is ADOPTED IN FULL. Sproles' petition is
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in accordance with the above Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter by separate document a judgment in
favor of Respondents and against Petitioner.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of December, 2017.

Brian Morris

United States District Court Judge

5