Barnes v. Salina

Filing 2

ORDER that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this judgment would not be taken in good faith and therefore leave to appeal as a poor person is denied. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 2/5/18. (mailed a copy of this order to plaintiff Barnes)(TF)

PS/CD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
ANDRE BARNES,
Petitioner,

18-CV-6060-FPG

v.

DECISION AND ORDER

C.F. SALINA, U.S. Marshall,
Respondent.
___________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Pro se Petitioner Andre Barnes, a federal pre-trial detainee currently held at the Livingston
County Jail who has pending criminal charges before this Court (United States v. Barnes, 16-CR6029-DGL-JWF), 1 filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 224. ECF
No. 1. He seeks release from custody and dismissal of the pending criminal charges based on the
invalidity of his prosecution. Id. Petitioner claims that the Indictment fails to state an offense, his
prosecution violates double jeopardy, the United States lacks “standing” to maintain the
prosecution because it was not the injured party (the charges involve child exploitation and sextrafficking), and his speedy trial rights have been violated. Id. at 6-7. Petitioner paid the filing
fee. For the following reasons, the Petition must be dismissed pursuant to the abstention doctrine.
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971).
DISCUSSION
The Supreme Court has held that federal courts are bound by the “basic doctrine of equity
jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act, and particularly should not act to restrain a

1

A Criminal Complaint was filed on September 22, 2015, Petitioner was order detained on September 24, 2015, and
an Indictment was filed on March 31, 2016. See 16-CR-6029-DGL-JWF, ECF Nos. 1, 7, 22.

1

criminal prosecution, when the moving party has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer
irreparable injury if denied equitable relief.” Id. at 43-44. “The accused should first set up and
rely upon his defense in the state courts, even though this involves a challenge of the validity of
some statute, unless it plainly appears that this course would not afford adequate protection.” Id.
at 45. “Generally, no danger exists where the defendant has the opportunity to offer a defense in
the criminal prosecution.” Ceglia v. Zuckerburg, Holder, 600 F. App’x 34, 37-38 (2d Cir. 2015)
(summary order) (citing Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (affirming the denial
of an attempt to enjoin prosecution by an independent counsel and noting that “in no case that we
have been able to discover has a federal court enjoined a federal prosecutor’s investigation or
presentment of an indictment”)). Petitioner will have an opportunity with counsel to challenge the
federal criminal charges against him in this Court and to apply for release from custody based on
the alleged flaws of his prosecution.
While Younger involved a case where a federal court was asked to interfere in a pending
state criminal prosecution, its equitable principles apply where federal courts are asked to interfere
in a federal criminal action. See, e.g., Ceglia, 600 F. App’x at 37-38; Kantipuly v. Ross, 06-CV00792-JTE, ECF No. 3 at 4-5 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 18, 2007). Accordingly, the Petition must be
dismissed.
CONCLUSION
The Petition is dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this judgment would not be taken in good faith and therefore leave
to appeal as a poor person is denied. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). Petitioner
must file any notice of appeal with the Clerk’s Office, United States District Court, Western
District of New York, within 60 days of the date of judgment in this action. Requests to proceed

2

on appeal as a poor person must be filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court

3