Glenn v. United States of America et al

Filing 7

Order. Plaintiff's claims implicate his current confinement and pending state court criminal proceedings against him. Accordingly, this action is dismissed. Signed on 11/14/2017 by Judge Ann L. Aiken. (copy mailed to plaintiff) (jw)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

MELREE LAREA GLENN,

Case No. 3:17-cv-01345-AA

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

PORTLAND POLICE BUREAU; MACE
WINTER, BURGLARY TASK FORCE;
RANDAL YOSHIMURA, FORENSICS,
Defendants.

AIKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff, an inmate at Multnomah County Inverness Jail, filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and was allowed to proceed in forma pauperis. However, plaintiff's Complaint
was deficient and the Court dismissed plaintiff's claims regarding incorrect restitution
information. Plaintiff was allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint regarding his claims of
false arrest and wrongful imprisonment. Plaintiff was further advised that this Court would not
intervene in pending state court criminal proceedings if his claims challenging law enforcement
conduct related to criminal theft and burglary charges currently pending against him.

1-

ORDER

I

After filing this lawsuit, plaintiff filed additional suits alleging the same unlawful conduct
as alleged in this action. See Glenn v. State of Oregon, Civ. No. 3: 17-cv-01576-AA; Glenn v.

State of Oregon, Civ. No. 3:17-cv-01633-AA; Glenn v. State of Oregon, Civ. No. 3:17-cv01634-AA. In each of those cases, plaintiff alleged claims or submitted documents reflecting that
his instant claims relate to his current confinement and pending criminal proceedings in
Multnomah County. As plaintiff was advised, this Court will not interfere in a pending state
court criminal proceeding absent a showing of irreparable injury. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37, 53-54 (1971). Plaintiff does not make such a showing, as he can raise his constitutional
challenges in state court. Accordingly, the Court must abstain from adjudicating plaintiffs
claims. See Sprint Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 134 S. Ct. 584, 588 (2013) (stating that "federalcourt abstention is required" when there is "a parallel, pending state criminal proceeding); Heck

v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487 n.8 (1994) (noting that when a state criminal defendant brings a
federal civil rights lawsuit while his criminal charges are pending, abstention is "an appropriate
response to the parallel state-court proceedings").
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs claims implicate his current confinement and pending state court criminal
proceedings against him. Accordingly, this action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

Ji..

day of November, 2017.

Ann Aiken
United States District Judge

2-

ORDER