Smith v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al
Filing
17
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). (sc)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CHARLES E. SMITH,
:
:
Petitioner
:
:
vs.
:
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
et al.,
:
:
:
Respondents
:
No. 1:16-cv-1503
(Judge Kane)
MEMORANDUM
Background
Pending before the court is a petition for writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Charles E.
Smith, a state pretrial detainee, confined at the Dauphin County
Prison, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. No. 1.)
On August 12,
2016, Smith paid the $5.00 filing fee. The petition has been given
preliminary consideration and, for the reasons discussed below,
the court will dismiss this action without prejudice because there
are ongoing state court criminal proceedings. See R. GOVERNING §
2254 CASES R. 4.1
On or about July 6, 2016, Smith was arrested and
detained by the Harrisburg Police Department on drug charges,
1. Rule 4 states in pertinent part that “[t]he clerk must
promptly forward the petition to a judge under the court’s
assignment procedure, and the judge must promptly examine it. If
it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits
that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district
court, the judge must dismiss the petition . . . .”
including drug delivery resulting in death. (Doc. No. 1.)
The
charges were returned and Smith bound over to the Court of Common
Pleas of Dauphin County for trial.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Charles Smith, CP-22-CR-0005603-2016.2 The docket of the Court
of Common Pleas of Dauphin County reveals that Smith was formally
arraigned on an Information filed by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania charging him with drug delivery resulting in death
and delivery of drugs on November 18, 2016 and he is scheduled to
appear at a plea hearing on December 27, 2016, before President
Judge Richard A. Lewis of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County.
Generally, federal courts must adjudicate all cases and
controversies that are properly before them. New Orleans Pub.
Serv., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358, 109 S.Ct.
2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989). Abstention, however, “is the
judicially created doctrine under which a federal court will
decline to exercise its jurisdiction so that a state court or
state agency will have the opportunity to decide the matters at
issue.” Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp., 671 F.2d 743, 746
(3d Cir.1982). In Younger v. Harris, the United States Supreme
2. The court utilized the Unified Judicial System of
Pennsylvania Web Portal to review the docket of the criminal case
pending against Smith in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County. A district court may take judicial notice of proceedings
in another court. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118 (9th
Cir. 1980); Hayes v. Woodford, 444 F.Supp.2d 1127, (S.D. Cal.
2006)(“[F]ederal courts may take judicial notice of other courts’
proceedings, within the federal judiciary and without, if the
proceedings directly relate to the matter before the court.”).
2
Court “established a principle of abstention when federal
adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal proceeding.”
Yi Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 202 (3d Cir.2005) (discussing
Younger, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). The Younger Court based its decision
on the principles of comity and “the longstanding public policy
against federal court interference with state court proceedings.”
Younger, 401 U.S. at 43. Absent extraordinary circumstances,3
Younger abstention will apply when the following three
requirements are met: “(1) there are ongoing state proceedings
that are judicial in nature; (2) the state proceedings implicate
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford an
adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims.” Lazaridis v.
Wehmer, No. 09-1342, --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 27216, at *3 (3d Cir.
January 7, 2010) (quoting Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of
Hampton, 411 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir.2005)). Indeed, “[i]n no area
of the law is the need for a federal court to stay its hand
pending completion of state proceedings more evident than in the
3. Even when all requirements are met, Younger abstention is not
appropriate when “(1) the state proceedings are being undertaken
in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2) some other
extraordinary circumstances exist, such as proceedings pursuant
to a flagrantly unconstitutional statute ....” Schall v. Joyce,
885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989). These exceptions are to be
narrowly construed. Loftus v. Township of Lawrence Park, 764 F.
Supp. 354, 357 (W.D. Pa. 1991). Wood has failed to show that he
falls within any of the narrow exceptions to the Younger
doctrine.
3
case of pending criminal proceedings.” Evans v. Court of Common
Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d Cir.1992).
Smith makes a vague argument that the state criminal
charges violate his rights under the United States Constitution.
He requests that he be released from custody because the “actual
facts of [the] case do not support the charges lodged against
[him].” (Doc. No. 1, at 3.) Smith is raising issues regarding the
propriety of his arrest which should first be addressed by the
state courts.
It is clear that Smith claims concerning his
ongoing criminal proceedings satisfy the requirements of
abstention, and the instant habeas action does not raise the type
of extraordinary circumstances contemplated under Younger. Thus,
under the present circumstances, the Court concludes that it is
appropriate to abstain from entertaining the petition, as
abstention is required out of deference to the integrity of the
state judicial process.
Accordingly, the petition will be
dismissed without prejudice.4
4. Furthermore, a state prisoner must exhaust all available
state judicial remedies before filing a petition for habeas
corpus in federal court. 28 U.S.C. Sections 2254(b) and (c).
Neither an intractable jurisdictional prerequisite nor "a mere
formality,
. . . [the exhaustion requirement] serves the
interests of comity between the federal and state systems by
allowing the state an initial opportunity to determine and
correct any violations of a prisoner's federal rights." Gibson
v. Scheidemantel, 805 F.2d 135, 138 (3d Cir. 1986). Exhaustion
also "protect[s] the state court's role in the enforcement of
federal law and prevent[s] disruption of state judicial
proceedings." Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 518 (1982). There is
no indication whatsoever that Smith has availed himself of state
(continued...)
4
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”), an
appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the
district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that
jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to
deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322 (2003). “When the district court denies a habeas
petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s
underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the
prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Here,
jurists of reason would not find the procedural disposition of
this case debatable. Accordingly, no COA will issue.
An appropriate order will be entered.
4. (...continued)
court appellate procedures to challenge the charges or his
detention.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?