CARTER v. ARCHDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT et al

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 8/22/2013, that Plaintiff's Motion for Emergency Stay and Injunction (Docket Entry 6 ) be denied. (Lloyd, Donna)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

JAMES J. CARTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ARCHDALE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
DAVID JONES, CITY OF ARCHDALE,
GARLAND YATES, and RANDOLPH
COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S
OFFICE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13CV613

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This

matter

comes

before

the

undersigned

United

States

Magistrate Judge for a recommended ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Emergency Stay and Injunction (Docket Entry 6).
dated Aug. 8, 2013.)

(See Docket Entry

For the reasons that follow, the instant

Motion should be denied.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought the instant action
complaining of violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based, in part, on
his

alleged

malicious

prosecution

in

a

state

court

criminal

proceeding he identifies as case number “12CRS53047” (Docket Entry
1 at 2 (¶ 1(a)).

1

(See id. at 2-32.)1

Plaintiff now asks this

Plaintiff subsequently filed a document he entitled
“Plaintiff’s Harassment Complaint,” which the Clerk docketed as an
Amended Complaint.
(Docket Entry 5.)
That filing, however,
appears to represent a supplemental complaint in that, in it,
Plaintiff seeks to include allegations of harassment based on the
(continued...)

Court “to grant an [e]mergency [s]tay of all [p]roceedings and
actions in Randolph County Superior Court related to the alleged
criminal case #12CVS53047 and/or any alleged criminal case against
[Plaintiff] and to issue an injunction against the Randolph County
Superior Court, the Randolph County District Attorney’s Office,
Garland Yates, the Randolph County Superior Court Clerk, and W.
Scott

Harkey

barring

them

from

taking

any

action

against

[Plaintiff] or in relation to the alleged criminal case against
(Docket Entry 6 at 1.)2

[Plaintiff].”
“Defendants

are

acting

in

an

illegal

Plaintiff asserts that
manner

to

violate

[]

Plaintiff’s [c]ivil [r]ights under the [c]olor of [s]tate [l]aw and
are using proceedings in a case . . . to further those illegal
actions

and

Plaintiff.”
the

Court

to

perpetrate

(id. at 2.)
deny

the

a

fraud

upon

this

Court

and

the

Plaintiff further contends that, should

instant

Motion,

“Plaintiff

will

suffer

irreparable harm by not being able to exercise his [c]onstitutional
[r]ights and not being able to present evidence to an unbiased
[j]udge who is not part of the conspiracy alleged by Plaintiff in
[the] Complaint.”

(Id.)

1

(...continued)
filing of his original Complaint (see id. at 1), but does not seek
to replace the original Complaint (see id.).
2

Plaintiff’s instant Motion and supporting brief focus in
large part on enjoining a hearing scheduled for August 12, 2013.
(See Docket Entry 6 at 1.) Because that date has now passed, that
aspect of the instant Motion is moot.
However, fairly read,
Plaintiff’s instant Motion and supporting brief also ask the Court
to enjoin all state court criminal proceedings against him. (See
id.)
-2-

DISCUSSION
Because federal court intervention into ongoing state court
criminal

proceedings

offends

the

principles

of

state-federal

comity, it may occur only in extreme circumstances. See Younger v.
Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971).

Accordingly, federal courts

should abstain from such interference where “[(1)] there are
ongoing state judicial proceedings; [(2)] the proceedings implicate
important

state

interests;

and

[(3)]

there

is

an

adequate

opportunity to raise any federal claims in the state proceedings.”
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Maryland Comm’n on Human Rights, 38 F.3d
1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).

To avoid such abstention, a plaintiff

must demonstrate that he lacks an adequate remedy in the state
courts and that irreparable injury will occur in the absence of
equitable relief in federal court.
Abstention is proper here.

Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-44.

As an initial matter, it appears

that Plaintiff improperly seeks, at least in part, to enjoin
persons and/or entities that are not Parties to this action.
Docket Entry 6.)

(See

“[T]he Fourth Circuit has made clear that an

injunction, including a preliminary injunction, cannot be enforced
against a defendant over whom a district court has not obtained
personal jurisdiction through valid service of process.” 3M Co. v.
Christian Invs. LLC, No. 1:11cv627, 2011 WL 3678144, at *4 (E.D.
Va. Aug. 19, 2011) (unpublished). Moreover, the applicable factors
weigh in favor abstention.

First, as Plaintiff readily concedes,

there is an ongoing state criminal proceeding.
6

at

1.)

Second,

“North

Carolina
-3-

has

a

(See Docket Entry
very

important,

substantial, and vital interest in preventing violations of its
criminal laws.”
2003).

Nivens v. Gilchrist, 319 F.3d 151, 154 (4th Cir.

Indeed, “the States’ interest in administering their

criminal justice systems free from federal interference is one of
the most powerful of the considerations that should influence a
court considering equitable types of relief.”
479 U.S. 36, 49 (1986).

Kelly v. Robinson,

Finally, Plaintiff has not demonstrated

that he lacks the option of presenting his instant concerns in his
state court criminal proceeding, particularly where “ordinarily a
pending

state

prosecution

provides

the

accused

a

fair

and

sufficient opportunity for vindication of federal constitutional
rights,” Gilliam v. Foster, 75 F.3d 881, 904 (4th Cir. 1996)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

(See Docket Entries 6, 7.)

Although Plaintiff’s Complaint and instant Motion outline a
conspiracy allegedly permeating the state criminal justice system
and thereby impeding Plaintiff’s ability to receive an impartial
trial at that level, Plaintiff has offered only his own bare,
unsworn assertions to support that contention. (See Docket Entries
6, 7.)

Accordingly, no basis exists to conclude that the instant

action represents one of those “most narrow and extraordinary of
circumstances,”

Gilliam,

75

F.3d

at

903,

warranting

federal

interference in state court criminal proceedings.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has failed to present grounds sufficient to permit
this Court’s intervention in his pending state court criminal
proceedings.
-4-

IT

IS

THEREFORE

RECOMMENDED

that

Plaintiff’s

Motion

Emergency Stay and Injunction (Docket Entry 6) be denied.

/s/ L. Patrick Auld
L. Patrick Auld
United States Magistrate Judge
August 22, 2013

-5-

for