Haynes v. Phillips

Filing 6

OPINION AND ORDER by District Judge John F. Heil, III: This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT 2 3 . (acg, Deputy Clerk)

6:20-cv-00181-JFH Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 07/21/20 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KENJI DUVILLE HAYNES,
Plaintiff,
v.
MITCHELL PHILLIPS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 20-181-JFH

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Kenji Duville Haynes (“Plaintiff”) is a pro se pretrial detainee who is
incarcerated in the Wagoner County Jail in Wagoner, Oklahoma. On June 12, 2020, he filed
this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief related to his current
criminal proceedings (Dkt. No. 1). The sole defendant is Mitchell Phillips, a police officer
with the Pryor Police Department in Pryor, Oklahoma (“Officer Phillips”).
Plaintiff’s Allegations
Plaintiff references Case No. CF-2018-374, which according to the Oklahoma State
Courts Network, is a Mayes County criminal proceeding charging Plaintiff with manufacture
of CDS / Possession of Material with Intent to Manufacture.1 Plaintiff alleges that on
October 14, 2018, he was pulled over for a simple traffic stop by Officer Phillips. According
to Plaintiff, Officer Phillips allegedly went to Plaintiff’s house where Officer Phillips
trespassed on Plaintiff’s property, stalked and harassed Plaintiff, and asked to search
1

The Court takes judicial notice of the public records of the Oklahoma State Courts Network
(OSCN) at http://www.oscn.net. See Pace v. Addison, No. CIV-14-0750-HE, 2014 WL 5780744, at
*1 n.1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 5, 2014).

6:20-cv-00181-JFH Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 07/21/20 Page 2 of 5

Plaintiff’s house. According to Plaintiff, when he declined the request, Officer Phillips
detained Plaintiff for 1-1/2 hours to obtain a search warrant, which allegedly violated
Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also complains that Officer Phillips is a traffic
patrol officer who is not certified to investigate drug crimes. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that his
Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been denied.
Plaintiff requests relief in the form of an investigation of the facts by the Court and a
determination that his constitutional rights were violated. He also wants this Court to order
the state court to dismiss his criminal case with prejudice and to compensate him for false
incarceration and the loss of his job, personal possessions, house, and enjoyment of life.
Discussion
The Court notes that while Plaintiff is incarcerated in the Eastern District of
Oklahoma, the events of which he complains occurred in Mayes County, Oklahoma, which
is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Northern District of Oklahoma. In
addition, the named defendant is located in the Northern District. Therefore, proper venue
for Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims does not lie in this district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). When a
case is filed in the wrong district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
transfer such case to any district in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406.
Because, as discussed below, Plaintiff has raised claims that are improper for a § 1983
action, the Court finds this action should be dismissed instead of transferred.
Plaintiff has requested monetary relief for alleged constitutional violations arising
from Officer Phillips’ actions. To the extent a plaintiff seeks compensatory damages for his
2

6:20-cv-00181-JFH Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 07/21/20 Page 3 of 5

alleged unconstitutional incarceration, he first must prove his “conviction or sentence has
been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court’s
issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.” Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 (1994) (citing
28 U.S.C. § 2254). When judgment for a plaintiff in a § 1983 suit “would necessarily imply
the invalidity of his conviction or sentence, . . . the complaint must be dismissed unless the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
As for Plaintiff’s claims regarding Officer Phillips’ actions and the pending criminal
proceedings, “a prisoner who challenges the fact or duration of his confinement . . . must do
so through an application for habeas corpus.” Palma-Salazar v. Davis, 677 F.3d 1031, 1035
(10th Cir. 2012) (citing McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809, 811 (10th Cir.
1997)). “[A] a state court defendant attacking his pretrial detention should bring a habeas
petition pursuant to the general grant of habeas authority contained within 28 U.S.C. §
2241.” Walck v. Edmondson, 472 F.3d 1227, 1235 (10th Cir. 2007) (citations omitted).
Further, a § 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is confined.
Haugh v. Booker, 210 F.3d 1147, 1149 (10th Cir. 2000); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164,
166 (10th Cir. 1996). If Petitioner were to file a proper § 2241 petition, however, it would be
denied for the following reasons.
Federal courts are required to avoid interference with pending state criminal
prosecutions, “except under extraordinary circumstances, where the danger of irreparable
loss is both great and immediate.” Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). The Younger
3

6:20-cv-00181-JFH Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 07/21/20 Page 4 of 5

doctrine is based “on notions of comity and federalism, which require that federal courts
respect state functions and the independent operation of state legal systems.” Phelps v.
Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 44-45). Under
the doctrine established in Younger, abstention is appropriate whenever there exists (1)
ongoing state proceedings, (2) which implicate important state interests, (3) wherein the state
courts afford an adequate forum to present the applicant’s federal constitutional challenges.
Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982);
Taylor v. Jaquez, 126 F.3d 1294, 1297 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1005 (1998).
Here, the Court find that abstention is proper.
In Oklahoma, a remedy for unlawful detention is available through the writ of habeas
corpus in the state courts. See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1344 (“The writ [of habeas corpus] may
be had for the purpose of letting a prisoner to bail in civil and criminal actions.”). See also
Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 1331 (“Every person restrained of his liberty, under any pretense
whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of the restraint, and
shall be delivered therefrom when illegal.”). The records of the OSCN show that Petitioner
has not sought state habeas corpus relief or established that state court remedies are
unavailable for Case No. CF-2018-374. Therefore, federal habeas corpus relief is not
available at this time.

4

6:20-cv-00181-JFH Document 6 Filed in ED/OK on 07/21/20 Page 5 of 5

THEREFORE, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1406(a). All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21ST day of July 2020.

_________________________________
JOHN F. HEIL, III
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5