Prokop v. Francis
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court OVERRULES Petitioner's 27 Objections to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort's Proposed Findings and Recommendation; ADOPTS the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge VanDerv ort; DENIES Petitioner's 1 APPLICATION to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Costs; DISMISSES Petitioner's 2 Section 2254 Petition and DISMISSES this matter from the Court's active docket. The Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 11/25/2014. (cc: Petitioner, Pro Se and counsel of record) (arb)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
ROBERT CARL PROKOP,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:14-15847
MICHAEL FRANCIS,
Administrator,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are petitioner’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 1), and petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
(Doc. No. 2).
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Doc. No. 8).
The magistrate judge
submitted his proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) on
September 11, 2014.
(Doc. No. 18).
In the PF&R, Magistrate
Judge VanDervort recommended that the court deny petitioner’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
1
in which to file any objections to the PF&R.
Petitioner timely
filed objections to the PF&R on September 16, 2014.
27).
(Doc. No.
Because petitioner’s objections are without merit, the
court adopts the factual findings and legal conclusions
contained in the PF&R and dismisses petitioner’s petition.
I.
Background
In his petition, petitioner alleges that the Circuit Court
of Mercer County improperly granted “extradition to the State of
Missouri” on September 25, 2013.
(Doc. Nos. 2 and 3).
Petitioner argues that he “proved in the court that [he is] not
a fugitive.”
Id.
He claims that a fugitive warrant was issued
based on an erroneous charge, specifically, that he was a felon
in possession of a firearm in Missouri.
Id.
Petitioner
explains that he “plead[ed] not guilty to having committed any
crimes in the State of Missouri, or any other state related to
Missouri’s allegations.”
Id.
While petitioner appears to
acknowledge that he has unpaid child support obligations in
Missouri, he nevertheless contends that “extradition for the
purpose of collecting a civil debt is unlawful.”
Id.
The magistrate judge concluded that petitioner’s claims
challenged his extradition to Missouri, and, as a result, his
petition should fall under § 2241, rather than § 2254.
After
considering petitioner’s claims under § 2241, the magistrate
judge concluded that the court should abstain from exercising
2
jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim’s based upon the Younger
abstention doctrine.
As a result, the magistrate judge
recommended that this court dismiss petitioner’s petition for a
writ of habeas corpus and deny his application to proceed
without prepayment of fees or costs.
II.
Petitioner’s Objections to the PF&R
Initially, petitioner makes no specific objection to the
reasoning or findings in the PF&R.
Instead, his objections,
termed “Motion for Appellate Review” repeat the same arguments
and factual contentions petitioner presented in his initial
petition.
Petitioner’s contentions “do not direct the court to
a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and
recommendations” because such arguments are “general and
conclusory.”
1982).
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir.
As a result, a court need not conduct a de novo review
of such objections.
Id.
However, having reviewed the record and petitioner’s
arguments in their entirety, the court finds that adoption of
the PF&R is appropriate because of the Younger v. Harris
abstention doctrine.
401 U.S. 37 (1971).
In Martin Marietta
Corp. v. Md. Comm’n on Human Relations, the Fourth Circuit
outlined a three-prong test for the applicability of the Younger
abstention doctrine.
38 F.3d 1392, 1396 (4th Cir. 1994).
Under
this test, Younger abstention is appropriate only in those cases
3
where:
“1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings; 2) the
proceedings implicate important state interests; and 3) there is
an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state
proceedings.”
Id.
Upon de novo review, the court finds that the three prongs
of the Martin Marietta test are met.
appeal in State court.
Petitioner has a pending
(Case No. 13-P-cr-311).1
The State of
West Virginia has an important interest in resolution of its
judicial proceedings without undue interference from federal
courts.
Finally, petitioner’s appeal allows him an adequate
opportunity to present the same claims that he makes in the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Further, the court finds no reason to disregard Younger’s
mandate.
Under Supreme Court precedent, a federal court may
disregard Younger’s mandate only where:
1) there is a showing
of bad faith or harassment by state officials responsible for
prosecution; 2) the state law to be applied in the criminal
proceeding is flagrantly and patently violative of express
constitutional prohibitions; or 3) other extraordinary
circumstances exist that present a threat of immediate and
irreparable injury.
Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 241 (4th
Cir. 2006) (citing Kugler v. Helfant, 421 U.S. 117, 124 (1975)).
1
Petitioner has appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of
Appeals the Circuit Court of Mercer County’s grant of
extradition. (Doc. No. 2 at 2).
4
Petitioner fails to present sufficient facts to demonstrate a
showing of bad faith or harassment by state officials and no
other circumstances suggest that this court should ignore the
Younger mandate.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court OVERRULES petitioner’s objections to
Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s PF&R.
The court ADOPTS the
factual and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES
petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees,
(Doc. No. 1), DISMISSES petitioner’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus, (Doc. No. 2), and DISMISSES this matter from the
court’s active docket.
The court has additionally considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
A
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2253(c)(2).
Id. §
The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683–84 (4th Cir. 2001).
The court concludes that the governing
5
standard is not satisfied in this instance.
Accordingly, the
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to petitioner, pro
se.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 25th day of November, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
6
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?