Patterson v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 12/19/16. (sc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
VINCENT PATTERSON,
Petitioner
vs.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,
Respondents
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-02032
(Judge Rambo)
MEMORANDUM
Background
On October 7, 2016, Petitioner, Vincent
Patterson, an inmate at the Dauphin County Prison,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, filed a pro se petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. 1.)
On October 11, 2016, Patterson 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
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
1.
(continued...)
On or or about August 13, 2016, Patterson was
arrested and detained by the Harrisburg Police
Department on charges of human trafficking, promoting
prostitution and criminal use of a communication
facility. (Doc. No. 1.)
The charges were returned and
Patterson bound over to the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County for trial.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v. Vincent Andrew Patterson, Jr., CP-22-CR-0005569-2016.2
The docket of the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin
County reveals that on November 18, 2016, Patterson was
formally arraigned on the charges and that he is
scheduled for a hearing on January 4, 2017, before Judge
1.
(...continued)
petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court, the
judge must dismiss the petition . . . .”
The court utilized the Unified Judicial System of
Pennsylvania Web Portal to review the docket of the
criminal case pending against Patterson 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.
2
Scott A. Evans 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 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
3.
Even when all requirements are met, Younger
(continued...)
3
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 case of pending criminal
proceedings.” Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d
1227, 1234 (3d Cir.1992).
3.
(...continued)
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). Patterson has failed to show that he falls
within any of the narrow exceptions to the Younger
doctrine.
4
Patterson makes a vague argument that the state
criminal charges violate his rights under the United
States Constitution.
from custody.
He requests that he be released
Patterson is raising issues regarding the
propriety of his arrest and the validity of the charges
which should first be addressed by the state courts.
It
is clear that Patterson’s 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
(continued...)
5
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,
4.
(...continued)
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 Patterson has availed
himself of state court appellate procedures to
challenge the charges or his detention.
6
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.
s/Sylvia Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: December 19, 2016
7
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?