Rowan v. Cleveland Municipal Court

Filing 8

Memorandum Opinion and Order. This action is dismissed pursuant to 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. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. on 7/7/2020. (R,Sh)

Case: 1:20-cv-00829-SO Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/07/20 1 of 4. PageID #: 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

HAYES W. ROWAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CLEVELAND MUNICIPAL COURT,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:20 CV 829

JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Hayes W. Rowan filed this action against the Cleveland Municipal Court.
Plaintiff alleges he is the Defendant in a criminal case pending in that court and asserts he has
received ineffective assistance of counsel and has been denied a speedy trial. His next court hearing
is July 1, 2020. He asks this Court to enjoin those state court proceedings and schedule a status
conference to determine if that case should proceed in light of the alleged violation of his
constitution rights.
Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365
(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), 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. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319
(1989); Lawler v. Marshall, 898 F.2d 1196 (6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville, 99 F.3d
194, 197 (6th Cir. 1996). An action has no arguable basis in law when a Defendant is immune from

Case: 1:20-cv-00829-SO Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/07/20 2 of 4. PageID #: 51

suit or when a Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise
to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32 (1992);
Lawler, 898 F.2d at 1199.
When determining whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted,
the Court must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, accept all factual
allegations as true, and determine whether the Complaint contains “enough fact to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The
Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. Although a
Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, its “factual allegations must be enough to
raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the
Complaint are true.” Id. The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as
a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986). The Supreme Court in Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-678 (2009), further explains the “plausibility” requirement, stating that
“a claim has facial plausibility when the Plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the Court to draw
the reasonable inference that the Defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. Furthermore, “the plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks
for more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant acted unlawfully.” Id. This determination is a
“context-specific task that requires the reviewing Court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense.” Id.
This Court cannot grant the relief Plaintiff seeks. A federal court must decline to interfere
2

Case: 1:20-cv-00829-SO Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/07/20 3 of 4. PageID #: 52

with pending state proceedings involving important state interests unless extraordinary circumstances
are present. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44-45 (1971). 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. Watts v. Burkhart, 854 F.2d 839, 844-48 (6th Cir.1988). If the state Defendant files
such a case, Younger abstention requires the federal court to defer to the state proceeding. Id; see
also Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 15 (1987). Based on these principles, abstention is
appropriate if: (1) state proceedings are ongoing; (2) the state proceedings implicate important state
interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.
Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). 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.” Younger,
401 U.S. at 44.
All three factors supporting abstention are present. Plaintiff’s criminal case is still pending,
and state court criminal matters are of paramount state interest. See Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45.
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. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 430 (1979). The
burden at this point rests on the Plaintiff to demonstrate that state procedural law bars presentation
of his claims. Pennzoil Co., 481 U.S. at 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.” Pennzoil,
3

Case: 1:20-cv-00829-SO Doc #: 8 Filed: 07/07/20 4 of 4. PageID #: 53

481 U.S. at 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.

Conclusion
Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 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.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
SOLOMON OLIVER, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
July 7, 2020

1

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