Williams v. Spota et al

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's application for the entry of a Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order is DENIED. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Orde r would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose of any appeal. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment in this case in accordance with the January 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order and mark this case CLOSED. The Clerk of the Court shall also mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiff. So Ordered by Judge Joanna Seybert on 4/15/2016. C/M (Valle, Christine)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------X
STOKER OLUKOTUN WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-5468(JS)(ARL)

-againstDISTRICT ATTORNEY THOMAS SPOTA
and SUFFOLK COUNTY, as a
municipality,

Defendants.
----------------------------------X
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff:
Stoker Olukoton Williams, pro se
494733
Suffolk County Correctional Facility
110 Center Drive
Riverhead, New York 11901
For Defendants:

No appearances.

SEYBERT, District Judge:
Incarcerated pro se plaintiff Stoker Olukotun Williams
(“Plaintiff”) filed an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”) seeking the
entry of a “Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order” against
the defendants, Suffolk County District Attorney Thomas Spota
(“DA Spota”) and Suffolk County (together, “Defendants”).
Docket Entry 12.)

(OTSC,

More specifically, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin

his state court criminal prosecution.

For the reasons that

follow, Plaintiff’s application is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed an in forma pauperis Complaint in this
Court on September 16, 2015 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

the Defendants.

(Docket Entry 1.)

required

Prisoner

(“PLRA”)

with

Deficiency

his

Litigation

Reform

Complaint.

(“Notice”)

dated

Plaintiff did not file the
Act

authorization

Accordingly,

September

25,

by

form

Notice

2015,

the

of

Court

instructed Plaintiff to sign and return the enclosed PLRA within
fourteen (14) days in order to proceed with his case.
Entry 5.)

(Docket

On October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed the PLRA together

with an Order to Show Cause seeking a Preliminary Injunction and
Restraining

Order

requesting

that

his

underlying

criminal

prosecution be transferred from Suffolk County to the Bronx or
Brooklyn.

(Docket Entries 6, 7.)
By Memorandum and Order dated January 7, 2016, the

Court

accepted

the

PLRA,

GRANTED

Plaintiff’s

application

to

proceed in forma pauperis, but, inter alia, sua sponte DISMISSED
Plaintiff’s

claims

WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), 1915A(b)(1).1
the

dismissal

of

the

Complaint,

pursuant

28

U.S.C.

(Docket Entry 11.)

Given

Plaintiff’s

to

request

for

injunctive relief was DENIED.
On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff filed an OTSC seeking
the entry of a Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order.

1

Plaintiff had claimed that he could not get a fair trial in
Suffolk County because of statements allegedly made by DA Spota
to the media about Plaintiff. Plaintiff sought to recover
damages as well as a change of venue of the underlying criminal
prosecution. (See Compl. ¶¶ IV, V; Docket Entry 1.)
2

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendants from proceeding with the
underlying

criminal

prosecution

Court, Suffolk County.

of

Plaintiff

in

the

Supreme

Plaintiff claims that his criminal trial

should be transferred to “Bronx or Brooklyn” because Plaintiff
believes he cannot get a fair trial on Long Island as a result of
statements made to the media concerning Plaintiff and the case by
DA

Spota.

(OTSC

“prohibit[ing]

at

2.)

[Defendants]

Plaintiff
from

also

prosecuting

seeks
a

an

case

Order

against

[Plaintiff] in a Suffolk County courtroom[] [i]ncluding trial,
pretrial hearings and also prohibiting any Suffolk County Judges
from deciding any Pretrial hearings related to Stoker Olukotun
Williams’ case.”

(OTSC at 4.)
DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s
proceeding
DENIED.

with

his

application
criminal

to

enjoin

prosecution

in

Defendants
State

from

Court

is

For the same reasons that were set forth in the Court’s

January 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order, adjudication of Plaintiff’s
instant application is barred by the Younger Abstention Doctrine.
Federal

courts

ordinarily

must

abstain

from

exercising

jurisdiction over constitutional claims seeking declaratory or
injunctive relief when: “1) there is an ongoing state proceeding;
2) an important state interest is implicated in that proceeding;
and 3) the state proceeding affords the federal plaintiff an

3

adequate

opportunity

for

constitutional claims.”

judicial

review

of

the

federal

Diamond “D” Constr. Corp. v. McGowan,

282 F.3d 191, 198 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971); Hansel v. Town
Ct. for the Town of Springfield, N.Y., 56 F.3d 391, 393 (2d Cir.
1995).
In Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584,
591–92, 187 L. Ed. 2d 505 (2013), “the Supreme Court rejected
this three-part test in favor of a categorical approach.”
Shah,

569

F.

App’x

48,

50

(2d

Cir.

2014)

(summary

Mir v.
order).

Instead, the Supreme Court held that the Younger doctrine applies
only to three classes of state court proceedings: 1) “state
criminal prosecutions”; (2) “civil enforcement proceedings”; and
(3)

civil

proceedings

that

“implicate

a

State’s

enforcing the orders and judgments of its courts.”

interest

in

Sprint, 134

S. Ct. at 588 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted);
see id. at 591 (“We have not applied Younger outside these three
‘exceptional’ categories, and today hold . . . that they define
Younger’s scope.”).
Here, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief concerning the
location of his on-going criminal prosecution.

As is readily

apparent under the Supreme Court’s categorical approach, this
Court

must

abstain

under

the

4

Younger

abstention

doctrine.

Accordingly,

Plaintiff’s

application

seeking

the

entry

of

a

Preliminary Injunction and Restraining Order is DENIED and the
Clerk

of

the

Court

shall

enter

Judgment

in

this

case

in

accordance with the January 7, 2016 Memorandum and Order and mark
this case CLOSED.
CONCLUSION
For
application

the

for

the

reasons
entry

set
of

a

forth

above,

Preliminary

Plaintiff’s

Injunction

and

Restraining Order is DENIED.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3)
that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith
and therefore in forma pauperis status is DENIED for the purpose
of any appeal.

See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-

45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter Judgment in
this case in accordance with the January 7, 2016 Memorandum and
Order and mark this case CLOSED.

The Clerk of the Court shall

also mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se
Plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ JOANNA SEYBERT
JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.
Dated:

April
15 , 2016
Central Islip, New York
5