Holguin v. Cascade County et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 in full. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 4/5/2018. Mailed to Holguin (TAG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION

ROBERT MATHEW HOLGUIN, JR.,

CV-18-00014-GF-BMM-JTJ

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
CASCADE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Robert M. Holguin, Jr. filed a Complaint alleging that he has been
confined in unconstitutional conditions of confinement at the Cascade County
Detention Facility. (Doc. 2.) United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston entered
Findings and Recommendations in this matter on February 27, 2018. (Doc. 4.)
Neither party filed objections.
When a party makes no objections, the Court need not review de novo the
proposed Findings and Recommendations. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52
(1986). This Court will review Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations,
however, for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach.,
Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

1

Holguin alleges the following claims: (1) overcrowding; (2) excessive force
and failure to decontaminate after use of pepper spray; (3) denial of literature; (4)
interference with legal mail; (5) denial of hygiene items; and (6) challenges to the
basis for his incarceration. (Doc. 4 at 3.)
Judge Johnston determined that § 1915A(b) and § 1915(e)(2)(B) require the
Court to dismiss a complaint if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. (Doc. 4 at 3.) The Court will find the complaint to be
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted if the plaintiff fails to allege the grounds of his “entitlement to relief.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A complaint must
“contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Holguin
proceeds pro se. A document filed by a pro se litigant must be liberally construed
and a pro se litigant must be held to less stringent standards. Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
A. Denial of Literature
Judge Johnston determined that prisoners do not possess a constitutional
right to rehabilitation, including rehabilitative programs and services. Marshall v.
United States, 414 U.S. 417, 421 (1974). Judge Johnston correctly determined that
2

Holguin possesses no constitutional right to any reading materials he wishes. (Doc.
4 at 6.) Judge Johnston further correctly determined that Holguin has not
sufficiently alleged that he suffered any actual injury caused by the alleged
inadequate legal resources available to him. Holguin’s allegations fail to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 7. If Holguin can allege additional
facts to cure these defects, he may file an amended complaint. Id.
B. Ongoing Criminal Proceedings
Holguin alleges the Montana initiative known as Marcy’s Law has
unconstitutionally interfered with his criminal proceedings. Judge Johnston
determined there exists a strong policy against federal intervention in pending state
judicial processes in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-45 (1971).
Judge Johnston correctly determined that all of the elements of Younger
abstention are present in this case. (Doc. 4 at 9.) Holguin admitted that he has
ongoing criminal proceedings against him in state court. Id. The referenced
criminal proceedings implicate important state interests. Id. Holguin has the
opportunity to request relief from the state court to address the alleged violations of
his constitutional rights. Id. at 10. Finally, this Court will not interfere in a state
court’s proceedings absent an exceptional circumstance. Id. The Court will abstain

3

from proceeding with consideration of Holguin’s allegations regarding his ongoing
state court criminal proceedings.
C. Remaining Claims
Judge Johnston considered whether the remainder of Holguin’s claims are
frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek solely monetary relief from a
defendant who remains immune. (Doc. 4 at 11.) Judge Johnston also considered
whether Holguin has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits. Id. Judge
Johnston correctly determined that dismissal does not remain appropriate at this
time. Id. The Court will require response to Holguin’s claims of overcrowding at
the Cascade County Detention Center, excessive use of force, failure to properly
decontaminate after use of pepper spray, interference with legal mail, and denial of
hygiene items.
The Court has reviewed Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
for clear error. The Court finds no error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and
Recommendations, and adopts them in full.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations
(Doc. 4), are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall ABSTAIN from hearing
Holguin’s claims regarding his ongoing state court criminal prosecution as set forth
in Count VI of his Complaint against Defendants Cascade County, Cascade
4

County Attorney’s Office, Cascade County Attorney’s Office Employees Joshua
A. Racki, Valerie M. Winfield, Stephanie L. Fueller, Great Falls Police
Department, and Great Falls Police Department employees Detective Kaylin
Cunningham and Detective Noah Scott. If Holguin desires to continue with his
claims raised in Count VI after disposition of the state court criminal proceedings,
he must file a motion requesting that the stay lifted within thirty days of disposition
of those proceedings, unless an appeal is filed. If he appeals, any request to reopen
and lift the stay must be filed within thirty days of completion of the appellate
process.
DATED this 5th day of April, 2018.

5