United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Willis Collins (Plaintiff), a state pretrial detainee
appearing pro se, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §
1983, seeking relief for alleged violations of his
constitutional rights. See Doc. 1. United States
District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti has referred the matter to
the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings
consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C).
See Doc. 4.
law requires the court to screen complaints filed by
prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an
officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915A(a). In addition, because Plaintiff is
proceeding in forma pauperis, the court has an ongoing duty
to consider the sufficiency of his claims. See Id.
§ 1915(e)(2). As mandated, the undersigned has carefully
reviewed Plaintiff's pleadings and, for the following
reasons, recommends summary dismissal of the action.
alleges he is currently in pretrial detention, awaiting trial
on felony charges in the District Court in and for Comanche
County, Oklahoma, Case No. CF-2017-481. See Doc. 1,
at 1, 4, 5. He asserts four claims and names five Defendants
in both their individual and official capacities: Jill
Oliver, Ken Harris, Fred Smith, Lawrence Corrales, and Scott
Meaders. See Id. at 2. Plaintiff identifies
Defendants Oliver and Smith as district attorneys, Defendants
Harris and Meaders as judges, and Defendant Corrales as his
court-appointed counsel. See Id. at 1, 2, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10.
Claim I, see Id. at 7-8, Plaintiff contends all
Defendants violated his due process rights and, as factual
support, alleges “[t]here was no evidence introduced
sufficient to support a finding that [Defendant district
attorneys] Smith [and] Oliver . . . had or has personal
knowledge of the illegal charges filed against [him] - Count
I Burglary 1 and Count 2 Assault with a Dangerous
Weapon.” Id. at 8. As relief, Plaintiff asks
“the court to drop the charges . . . .”
Claim II, see Id. at 8, 13, Plaintiff maintains
certain Defendants violated his Sixth Amendment rights
“by not adviseing [him] of [his] right to have fast and
speedy trial within 70 days after [he] received [his]
information sheet and after [his] first appearance before a
judge . . . . Id. at 8. He further alleges that he
has “submitted 3 motion as well as other motions,
” that Defendant “Judge . . . Meadors ignored
[his] request, ” and that “[his] lawyer
[Defendant] Corrales” failed to advise him of his
speedy trial rights. Id. He also faults Defendant
“DA Jill Oliver” for failing to
“honor” or “reply to any of [his] motions
. . . .” Id. He contends all Defendants are
“in cahoots, by giving [him] uncecessary
unconstitutional continuances for money.” Id.
at 13. For relief on this claim, Plaintiff asks “the
court to review the evidence on Exhibit 1 and Exhibit
well as the witnesses testimonies.” Id.
Claim III, Plaintiff asserts an ongoing violation of his
right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Id. at 9. He alleges “[t]he trial court
abused its discretion” by failing to diligently
prosecute the criminal action, and he points to allegedly
“unconstitutional continuances” given by
Defendant Judge Meadors. Id. He also maintains his
lawyer, Defendant “Corrales, being court appointed,
allowed the judges, to give prosecutorial delays” and
is “guilty of wanton misconduct . . . .”
Id. He then cites “the Judge [for] totally
disregarding his motions, explaining he has “been here
since 6-21-17.” Id.
in Claim IV, id. at 10, Plaintiff alleges that all
Defendants have violated his Eighth Amendment rights and
claims that he is “a victim of cruel and unusual
punishment . . . .” Id. He points to his
“out rages bond of $75, 000” and to “6
month continuances . . . .” Id. He refers to
Defendant Corrales' letter to the OBA and claims,
“Now I have proof on this letter attached, of the
lawyers neglect . . . .” Id.
State court proceedings.
notice is taken of the electronic records of the District
Court in and for Comanche County, Oklahoma. Those records
reflect that on June 21, 2017, the State of Oklahoma charged
Plaintiff with two counts in Case No. CF-2017-481: Count 1,
Burglary in the First Degree and Count 2, Assault and Battery
with a Dangerous Weapon. See
r=CF-2017-481&cmid=459358 (last visited on April
6, 2018). On August 1, 2017, a preliminary hearing was
waived, and a date was set for formal arraignment. See
Id. On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff appeared in person and
with counsel at his formal arraignment. See Id. He
entered “a plea of not guilty” and
“waive[d] speedy trial.” Id. The case
was set for the January/February 2018 jury docket and then,
on January 18, 2018, Plaintiff appeared with counsel and
agreed to pass the case to the May 2018 jury docket. See
Id. On February 16, March 2, and March 7, 2018,
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed six motions, two to quash,
two for fast and speedy trial, and two for summary judgment.
Younger abstention doctrine.
relief Plaintiff requests from this Court is that the charges
against him be “drop[ped].” Id. at 8.
But the Younger abstention doctrine “dictates
that federal courts not interfere with state court
proceedings . . . when such relief could adequately be sought