Manygoat v. Havel

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge Judith C. Herrera granting 13 Peititioner's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or costs, striking Petitioner Manygoat's filings 11 and 14 asserting Civil Rights Claims and dismissing without prejudice 1 Petitioner Manygoat's Petition for 2254 Relief. (baw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO

HERBERT MANYGOAT,
Petitioner,
vs.

No. CV 17-00887 JCH/GJF

THOMAS C. HAVEL,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
THIS MATTER is before the Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner Herbert Manygoat (Doc. 1), as amended by his amended petition
(Doc. 3)and Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 9) (“the Petition”). The
Court dismisses the Petition based on the doctrine of abstention or, in the alternative, for failure to
exhaust state court remedies.
Petitioner Herbert Manygoat filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on August 28,
2017. (Doc. 1). Manygoat’s Petition indicates he is a pretrial detainee awaiting trial on New
Mexico state charges of 1st Degree Kidnapping (Intent to Commit Sex Crimes) and Aggravated
Battery (Deadly Weapon). See Doc. 1 at 2-5; State of New Mexico v. Herbert Manygoat, No. M47-FR-2016-00267. Since the filing of his Petition, Manygoat has filed nine amendments or
supplements to the Petition. (Doc. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14).
Although difficult to decipher, Manygoat’s Petition appears to seek release from detention
on three grounds: (1) that his counsel has been ineffective by failing to obtain Manygoat’s release
due to a medical disability (Doc. 1 at 2-3); (2) that one of the victims is not cooperating and the
1 

charges should be dismissed because her accusations are false (Doc. 1 at 3-4); and (3) that
Manygoat is actually innocent of the crimes charged (Doc. 1 at 3). His amendments and
supplements to the Petition make similar allegations and also contend that another inmate is
making false statements to others in the correctional facility that Manygoat is a sex offender. (Doc.
11, 14).
1. The Court Grants Petitioner Manygoat’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
When he initiated this proceeding, Manygoat did not file an application to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, nor did he pay the $5 filing fee. The Court entered
an Order to Cure Deficiency on March 28, 2018. (Doc. 11). In response to the Order to Cure
Deficiency, Petitioner Manygoat filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs. (Doc. 12, 13). The Court has conducted the review required by 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) and grants the Application to Proceed (Doc. 13).
2. The Court Strikes Petitioner Manygoat’s Civil Rights Filings
Manygoat commenced this proceeding as a habeas corpus case. (Doc. 1). In some of his
supplemental and amended filings, Manygoat makes allegations and asserts claims in the nature
of civil rights claims. Manygoat states “I got recourse through courts of New Mexico Tort Claims
Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claims” (Doc. 14 at 1) . . .“Please assist me at receiving
some (money) concerning the false labeling of being a ‘rapist.’” (Doc. 14 at 4).
As Manygoat has been previously advised, habeas corpus is not available or appropriate as
a damages remedy. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 498-99 (1973). See CV 18-00222 JB/KRS,
Doc. 3. Further, it is unreasonable to expect the Court continually to have to adapt as the petitioner
develops new theories or locates new respondents or defendants. Minter v. Prime Equipment Co.,
451 F.3d 1196, 1206 (10th Cir.2006). Last, rambling and incomprehensible filings that bury

2 

material allegations in “a morass of irrelevancies” do not meet Rule 8(a)'s pleading requirement
of a “short and plain statement.” Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1148 (10th Cir. 2007);
Ausherman v. Stump, 643 F.2d 715, 716 (10th Cir.1981). A pro se complaint may be stricken or
dismissed under Rule 8(a) if it is “incomprehensible.” See Carpenter v. Williams, 86 F.3d 1015,
1016 (10th Cir.1996); Olguin v. Atherton, 215 F.3d 1337 (10th Cir. 2000)(unpublished).
Manygoat’s supplemental and amended filings are largely incomprehensible, allege claims
that are unrelated to his original habeas corpus filing, and seek damages which are unavailable in
a habeas corpus proceeding. The Court will strike Doc. 11 and 14 as violative of Fed. R. Civ. P.
8. If Manygoat wishes to pursue civil rights claims, he must file a proper civil rights complaint in
a separate proceeding.1
3. The Court Will Dismiss Manygoat’s Habeas Corpus Petition Without Prejudice
In his habeas corpus Petition, Manygoat appears to be challenging his pretrial detention
based on charges in a pending San Juan County, New Mexico Magistrate Court criminal
proceeding, No. M-47-FR-2016-00627. (Doc. 1 at 7, 10-24). His allegations are difficult to
follow, but seems to seek dismissal of the criminal proceeding or release from custody on three
grounds—ineffective assistance of counsel, failure of the victims’ allegations, and actual
innocence. (Doc. 1 at 1-3).
With respect to ineffective assistance of counsel, Petitioner Manygoat claims that he is
physically disabled as a result of tibia and fibula fractures of his legs in 1995 and 2016. (Doc. 1
at 2). Manygoat contends that his Public Defender, Scott M. Curtis, ignored his disabilities, saying
“I don’t care. Because I’m retiring!!” (Doc. 1 at 2). He claims that “[f]ormer Public Defender

1

 The Court notes that Manygoat already has several pending civil rights cases in this Court. See
Manygoat v. Havel, No. CV 17-01115 JCH/GJF, Manygoat v. Havel, No. CV 18-00222 JB/KRS,
and Manygoat v. Mejia, No. CV 19-00028 JCH/SMV

3 

Scott M. Curtis was present only for the record. But, supposedly not even for Defending me. . . the
Physically Disabled accused. . .So, ineffective assistance of Council just remains.” (Doc. 1 at 3)
(emphasis in the original).
As to the second grounds, Manygoat contends:
“Victims refuses assisting in the unreasonable prosecutions. . . VictimRolinda Benally failed appearing for scheduled preliminary hearing on
10/12/2016. Therefore; her case for ‘kidnapping’ and ‘aggravated battery’
should’ve been legally expunged back on 10-12-2016.”
(Doc. 1 at 3). Last, regarding actual innocence, Manygoat states that “Attn: I’m remaining NOT
GUILTY and never will be judged GUILTY. No Way!! (Doc. 1 at 3) (emphasis in the original).
Manygoat’s Petition is on a New Mexico state court form and does not indicate the
statutory basis for his claims. (Doc. 1 at 1). The Petition states that he both “seeks to vacate, set
aside or correct an illegal sentence or order of confinement” and “challenges confinement of
conditions of confinement or matters other than the sentence or order of confinement.” (Doc. 1 at
1, ¶ 2). A state court defendant attacking pretrial detention should bring a habeas corpus petition
pursuant to the general grant of habeas authority contained within 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See, e.g.,
Green v. Whetsel, 164 F.App’x. 710, 710–11 (10th Cir. 2006); Fuller v. Green, 112 F.App’x. 724,
725 (10th Cir. 2004); Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007). Because
Manygoat is a pretrial detainee and his state criminal case is still pending, the Court construes
Manygoat’s Petition as brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The Court concludes that abstention is appropriate based on the doctrine enunciated in
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) and Manygoat’s pretrial habeas application should be
dismissed without prejudice. Although federal courts have an obligation to exercise jurisdiction
granted them in most circumstances, they must on rare occasions abstain from exercising their
jurisdiction in order to “avoid undue interference with states' conduct of their own affairs,”
4 

Seneca–Cayuga Tribe of Okla. v. State of Okla. ex rel. Thompson, 874 F.2d 709, 711 (10th Cir.
1989). See, also, Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 203 (1988). In Younger, the Supreme Court
held that a federal court should not enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding except to prevent
great and immediate irreparable injury. See 401 U.S. at 43–45. This decision rested on “a strong
federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings absent
extraordinary circumstances.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457
U.S. 423, 431 (1982).
The Younger doctrine, as developed, requires abstention when federal proceedings would
(1) interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding (2) that implicates important state interests
and (3) that affords an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims. See, e.g., Middlesex
County, 457 U.S. at 432; Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997); Seneca–Cayuga
Tribe, 874 F.2d at 711. Younger abstention is not discretionary once these three conditions are met.
Seneca–Cayuga Tribe, 874 F.2d at 711; J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1290–91 (10th
Cir. 1999). In this case, granting Manygoat habeas relief would interfere with his state criminal
proceedings, the State of New Mexico’s interest in prosecuting crimes occurring within its
jurisdiction is an important state interest, and the New Mexico State court proceedings afford
Manygoat an adequate opportunity to raise any federal claims he may have. Seneca–Cayuga
Tribe, 874 F.2d at 711. The Court determines that extraordinary circumstances do not exist and
the Court must mandatorily abstain and dismiss Manygoat’s habeas claims without prejudice. J.B.
ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d at 1290–91.
Alternatively, even if the Court was not required to abstain, dismissal is warranted because
Manygoat has failed to exhaust his state remedies. The requirement of exhaustion of state court
remedies applies not only to post-conviction claims brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but also to §

5 

2241 habeas petitions brought by pretrial detainees. Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410
U.S. 484, 489-91 (1973). The record shows that the New Mexico criminal proceedings are pending
and there is no allegation or contention that Manygoat has exhausted all available state court
remedies. (Doc. 1 at 3-4). Therefore, the Court will also dismiss Manygoat’s Petition without
prejudice based on his failure to exhaust the state remedies
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs filed by
Petitioner Herbert Manygoat (Doc. 13) is GRANTED;
(2)

Petitioner Manygoat’s filings asserting civil rights claims (Doc. 11, 14) are

STRICKEN; and
(3) Petitioner Herbert Manygoat’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), as
amended by the amended petition (Doc. 3), and Second Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (Doc. 9), is DISMISSED without prejudice based on Younger abstention and failure to
exhaust state court remedies.

________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6