James v. McClure et al

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Frank H. Seay granting 11 Motion to Abstain; staying case; Clerk of Court is directed to enter an administrative closing order(trl, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTIAN LAMONT JAMES,

)
)
)
)
) No. CIV-11-241-FHS
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
J.J. MCCLURE and JASON GLOVER,
Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff, Christian Lamont James, instituted this action
seeking to have criminal charges against him removed from his
record and to stop the harassment by Defendants, J.J. McClure and
Jason Glover, deputy sheriffs of Murray County, Oklahoma.
criminal

charges

“traffic

stop”

against

of

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

on

an

arise

out

of

unspecified

The

a

purported

date.

It

is

Plaintiff’s position that Defendants conducted an unlawful search
of his vehicle and that he was subsequently subjected to an illegal
seizure of his person pursuant to an arrest warrant.

Defendants

have filed a Motion to Abstain (Dkt. No. 11) asking this Court to
refrain from proceeding in this matter in light of the pending
criminal action arising out of the “traffic stop.”

The criminal

action has been filed in the District Court of Murray County,
Oklahoma,

charging

Plaintiff

with

possession

of

a

controlled

dangerous substance after former conviction of a felony. Plaintiff
has

failed

to

respond

to

Defendants’

motion.

Having

fully

considered the issues raised by Defendants’ motion, the Court finds
it appropriate to stay this matter pending resolution of the state
criminal proceedings.
Defendants’ motion invokes the doctrine of abstention set
1

forth by Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

Pursuant to the

Younger abstention doctrine, a federal court must abstain from
exercising jurisdiction over an action where “(1) state judicial
proceedings

are

ongoing;

(2)

state

proceedings

implicate

an

important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings offer an
adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues.”
Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. Stovall, 341 F.3d 1202, 1204 (10th Cir.
2003). If these three conditions are met, the Court is required to
abstain unless extraordinary circumstances exist.

Crown Point I,

LLC v. Intermountain Rural Elec. Ass’n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th
Cir. 2003).

Although the record before the Court is limited, the

Court nonetheless finds all three of the Younger factors have been
satisfied.

First, Defendants assert Plaintiff has been charged in

the District Court of Murray County, Oklahoma, with a felony charge
of possession of a controlled substance after former conviction and
that a preliminary hearing is set in that matter on September 28,
2011.1

A state criminal case is the type of state proceeding due

deference under Younger.

D.L. v. Unified Sch. Dist. No. 497, 392

F.3d 1223, 1228 (10th Cir. 2004)(seeking to enjoin a pending state
criminal proceeding is the classic example of the application of
Younger abstention).

Second, the State of Oklahoma clearly has a

substantial interest in prosecuting individuals who allegedly
violate its laws.

Finally, the state criminal proceedings provide

an adequate opportunity for Plaintiff to litigate the federal
constitutional issues raised herein, i.e., the alleged Fourth
Amendment violations of illegal search and seizure.

Indeed, it

appears from the limited record before the Court that the validity
of the underlying state criminal charge rests, in part, on the

1

Defendants do not provide any supporting documentation
for the state criminal charge, but the Court assumes the
existence of such state court proceedings given the allegations
in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
2

resolution

of

the

constitutional

issues

asserted

herein

by

Plaintiff. As all three conditions of Younger have been satisfied,
the Court concludes it is appropriate to stay this action.2
Defendants’ Motion to Abstain (Dkt. No. 11) is granted.

This

action is stayed pending conclusion of the underlying state court
criminal

proceedings.

Because

the

resolution

of

the

state

proceedings could take a substantial amount of time, the Court
finds an administrative closure of this case is also appropriate.
Consequently, the Court Clerk shall administratively close this
case and it may be reopened upon the request of either party made
within ninety days of the conclusion of the underlying state court
criminal proceedings.
It is so ordered this 12th day of September, 2011.

2

The record does not establish extraordinary circumstances
which would prevent abstention. Plaintiff has not made a showing
of bad faith or harassment by state officials responsible for the
prosecution of Plaintiff nor has there been a showing that any
state law or regulation to be applied is “flagrantly and patently
violative of express constitutional prohibitions.” See Brown v.
Day, 555 F.3d 882, 888 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2009).
3