Langston v. Pinkney et al
Filing
3
Opinion & Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/25/18. Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted and this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. (Related Doc. 2 ) (D,MA)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
------------------------------------------------------:
JOHN LANGSTON,
: CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01265
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
vs.
: OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Doc. No. 1]
CLIFFORD PINKNEY, et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
------------------------------------------------------JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Pro se Plaintiff John Langston filed this action against Cuyahoga County Sheriff
Clifford Pinkney, Cuyahoga County Jail Director of Corrections Kenneth Mills, Cuyahoga
County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O’Malley, and Cleveland Second District Police
Detective John Doe. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges he is awaiting trial on charges of
aggravated robbery when he is, in fact, the victim and not the perpetrator of the crime. He
claims Defendants have not done a thorough job of investigating the incident and asserts claims
for malicious prosecution, excessive bond, and denial of due process. He seeks dismissal of the
charges and monetary damages.
Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That
Application is granted.
I. Background
Plaintiff states his bicycle was stolen on July 6, 2017. He witnessed the theft but was
unable to catch the perpetrator on foot. He contends he spotted the thief the next day and
confronted him, telling him to go and get his bicycle. The man returned a few minutes later
with a Cleveland police officer. The officer took the statements of both parties and left. Later
that evening, Plaintiff saw the man at a local store. He contends the man attacked him with a
brick. He alleges the attack stopped only when two females rushed to his aide. He indicates he
was hospitalized for head injuries. Approximately a month after the assault, he learned there
was a warrant for his arrest. He states he turned himself in believing the matter would be
resolved quickly. Instead, his bond was set at $ 50,000 and he remains detained in jail awaiting
trial on charges of aggravated robbery. He claims Cleveland Police and Cuyahoga County
prosecutors did not do an adequate investigation, and asserts claims for malicious prosecution,
excessive bond and denial of due process.
II. Legal Standard
Although the Court does not hold pro se pleadings to the same standard as those filed by
attorneys, the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)
if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact.1 A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is based on an unquestionably
meritless legal theory or when the factual allegations are clearly baseless.2 A cause of action
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it does not contain enough facts to
suggest Plaintiff has a plausible claim that entitles him to the relief he seeks.3 This does not
mean a Plaintiff is required to allege the facts of his Complaint in great detail, but he still must
provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”4 A
1
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989); Sistrunk v. City of
Strongsville, 99 F.3d 194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990).
2
Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
3
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009).
4
Id. at 678.
2
Complaint that offers only legal conclusions or a simple listing of the elements of a cause of
action will not meet this standard.5 When reviewing the Complaint under § 1915(e), the Court
must read it in a way that is the most favorable to the Plaintiff. 6
III. Analysis
This Court cannot entertain Plaintiff’s challenge to his pending state court criminal
action. A federal court must decline to interfere with pending state proceedings involving
important state interests unless extraordinary circumstances are present.7 When a person is the
target of an ongoing state action involving important state matters, he or she cannot interfere
with the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action involving claims that could
have been raised in the state case.8 If the state Defendant files such a case, Younger abstention
requires the federal court to defer to the state proceeding.9 Based on these principles, abstention
is appropriate if: (1) state proceedings are on-going; (2) the state proceedings implicate
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise
federal questions.10 Abstention is mandated whether the state court proceeding is criminal,
quasi-criminal, or civil in nature as long as federal court intervention “unduly interferes with the
legitimate activities of the state.”11
All three factors supporting abstention are present. Plaintiff admits that the criminal
action against him is still pending and this Court acknowledges that state court criminal matters
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Id.
Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir. 1998).
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971).
Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 844-48 (6th Cir.1988).
Id; see also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987).
Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982).
Younger, 401 U.S. at 44.
3
are of paramount state interest.12 The third requirement of Younger is that Plaintiff must have
an opportunity to assert his federal challenges in the state court proceeding. The pertinent
inquiry is whether the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal
claims.13 The burden at this point rests on the Plaintiff to demonstrate that state procedural law
bars presentation of his claims.14 When a Plaintiff has not attempted to present his federal
claims in the state court proceedings, the federal court should assume that state procedures will
afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of “unambiguous authority to the contrary.”15 Here,
there has been no showing that the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this federal lawsuit are barred
in the state action. The requirements of Younger are satisfied and this Court must abstain from
interfering in any pending state court criminal action against the Plaintiff.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
granted and this action is dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2018
12
13
14
15
16
s/
James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45.
Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 430 (1979).
Pennzoil Co., 481 U.S. at 14.
Id. at 15.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides:
An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken
in good faith.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?