Wells v. State of Hawaii

Filing 2

Memorandum Opinion and Order: It is ORDERED THAT this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); and the Court FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge James R. Knepp II on 4/1/2024. Copy sent to Plaintiff Gabriel Wells, 6605 Blossman Road, Toledo, OH 43617 by regular U.S. Mail on 4/1/2024. (B,JL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
GABRIEL WELLS,
Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 3:24 MC 0005
JUDGE JAMES R. KNEPP II

v.
STATE OF HAWAII,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff Gabriel Wells filed this pro se Complaint, captioned “Motion to Quash, Court
Lacks Personal Jurisdiction” against the State of Hawaii. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff asserts he was arrested
in Hawaii on a warrant in December 2023 and charged with obstructing government operations.
See Doc. 1-1.  A criminal complaint was filed against him in the Hawaii Fifth Circuit Court in
Kauai. State of Hawaii v. Wells, No. 5DCW-24-0000028 (Hawaii 5th Cir.) (Compl. filed Jan. 5,
2024). Id. He was released on bond. Id. That case is still pending. Plaintiff filed this action on
January 16, 2024, contesting the validity of Hawaii’s statehood and claiming that Hawaii has no
jurisdiction to prosecute him. (Doc. 1). He asks this Court to quash the criminal action pending
against him in Hawaii. Id.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
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). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law or fact when it is premised on an
indisputably meritless legal theory or when the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,
490 U.S. at 327.
A cause of action fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted when it lacks
“plausibility in the Complaint.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 564 (2007). A pleading
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009). The factual allegations in the pleading must be
sufficient to raise the right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the
allegations in the complaint are true. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 555. The plaintiff is not required
to include detailed factual allegations, but must provide more than “an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers legal
conclusions or a simple recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not meet this pleading
standard. Id. In reviewing a complaint, the Court must construe the pleading in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Bibbo v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 151 F.3d 559, 561 (6th Cir.1998).
DISCUSSION
As an initial matter, this Ohio District Court lacks jurisdiction to declare the statehood of
Hawaii to be invalid. Plaintiff cites to no legal authority that supports this Court’s jurisdiction to
make such a determination and the Court is unaware of any such authority.
Moreover, this Court must abstain from interfering with a pending state court matter. A
federal court must decline to interfere with pending state proceedings involving important state
interests unless extraordinary circumstances are present. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 4445 (1971). When a person is the target of an ongoing state action involving important state matters,
he cannot interfere with the pending state action by maintaining a parallel federal action involving

2

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 court 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); O'Neill v. Coughlan, 511 F.3d 638, 643 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Younger abstention requires a
federal court to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with
pending state judicial proceedings.”).
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. The criminal action against Plaintiff 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 his jurisdictional challenges. 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.” Id. at 15.

3

Here, Plaintiff has not shown that he asserted these claims in the Hawaiian courts or that
he is procedurally barred from asserting them 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 Plaintiff.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, good cause appearing, it is
ORDERED THAT this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e); and the Court
FURTHER CERTIFIES, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this
decision could not be taken in good faith.

s/ James R. Knepp II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4