Divelbiss, Randin v. McFarland

Filing 12

ORDER that the court will abstain from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending final resolution of plaintiff Randin Divelbiss's state criminal proceedings. This case is STAYED. The clerk of court is directed to close the case. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 11/26/2024. (lam),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

RANDIN DIVELBISS,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION and ORDER

DEPUTY MCFARLAND and
ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF,

24-cv-231-jdp

Defendants.
Plaintiff Randin Divelbiss, proceeding without counsel, alleges that an Adams County
deputy referred false allegations of obstruction of an officer against him to the district attorney.
But Divelbiss didn’t sign his complaint, and it wasn’t clear from his filings and electronic state
court records whether he was actually prosecuted for the incident discussed in his complaint.
Dkt. 4. Divelbiss alleged that he was prosecuted for events taking place in late December 2023,
but my review of electronic state court records does not show a criminal case initiated against
Divelbiss for events taking place then. Rather, he was charged with obstruction in State v.
Divelbiss, Adams County Case No. 2023CM20, for events taking place in late December 2022.
I directed Divelbiss to submit a signed copy of the complaint and to explain whether Case No.
2023CM20 is the case in which he was falsely charged or otherwise explain what happened
with the charges that he discusses in his complaint. Id.
Divelbiss has responded with a series of submissions, including a signed document in
which he states that the underlying incident occurred in December 2022 and that Adams
County Case No. 2023CM20 is the case in which he was falsely charged. Dkt. 8. I will consider
this document as a supplement to the complaint, so he has now complied with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11(a).

But this court cannot immediately consider Divelbiss’s claims because the proceedings
in Adams County Case No. 2023CM20 are still ongoing. Absent extraordinary circumstances
not present here, federal courts must abstain from deciding a claim when doing so would
interfere with a state’s pending criminal prosecution. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43–44
(1971). Divelbiss’s claims related to his allegedly malicious prosecution would unduly interfere
with his criminal proceedings. See Gakuba v. O’Brien, 711 F.3d 751, 753 (7th Cir. 2013). So I
must abstain from deciding these claims until those proceedings have ended.
I will stay this case and direct the clerk of court to close it. That means that Divelbiss
may move to reopen this case after the conclusion of the state criminal proceedings, including
all appeals and any relevant state collateral review proceedings. See Simpson v. Rowan, 73 F.3d
134, 139 (7th Cir. 1995). But if Divelbiss’s criminal case results in a conviction, he may not
be able to proceed with his claims in this case; I will have to dismiss this case if a judgment in
his favor would imply the invalidity of a state conviction. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477,
486–87 (1994).

2

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the court will abstain from exercising jurisdiction, pursuant to
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), pending final resolution of plaintiff Randin Divelbiss’s
state criminal proceedings. This case is STAYED. The clerk of court is directed to close the
case.
Entered November 26, 2024.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

3