United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHELL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
a pre-trial detainee who appears pro se, seeks a writ of
habeas corpus, alleging that he is “awaiting
trail” in the District Court of Oklahoma County, No.
CF-18-1553, and claiming that he “can't get an full
and fair hearing.” Doc. 1, at 1. As relief from
this Court, Petitioner asks to “receive an full and
fair hearing under Brady vs Maryland, tords exculpatory
evidence.” Id. at 2.
undersigned Magistrate Judge has examined the petition as
directed by Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts, and, for the following
reasons, recommends that the court abstain from intervening
in an ongoing criminal proceeding brought by the State of
State court proceedings.
notice is taken of the publicly-available electronic records
of the State of Oklahoma. Those records reflect that on April 12,
2018, the State of Oklahoma charged Petitioner in the
District Court of Oklahoma County, Case No. CF-2018-1553,
with Assault and Battery upon a Police or Other Law
Enforcement Officer. See
The matter is set for jury trial on January 28, 2019. See
Younger abstention doctrine.
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43 (1971), the
Supreme Court determined that federal court abstention is
required when three conditions are met: (1) there are ongoing
state proceedings; (2) the state proceedings provide an
adequate forum to hear Petitioner's federal claims; and
(3) the state proceedings implicate important state
interests. Chapman v. Oklahoma, 472 F.3d 747, 749
(10th Cir. 2006). The doctrine “dictates that federal
courts not interfere with state court proceedings . . . when
such relief could adequately be sought before the state
court.” Rienhardt v. Kelly, 164 F.3d 1296,
1302 (10th Cir. 1999).
matter, Petitioner's claims unquestionably relate to an
ongoing state criminal proceeding so the first condition is
the second inquiry-whether Petitioner's federal claims
can be heard in state proceedings-the Oklahoma Court of
Criminal Appeals “may entertain . . . certain
extraordinary writs which arise out of criminal
matters.” Rule 10.1(A), Rules of the Okla. Ct. Crim.
App., Title 22, Ch. 18, App. (2018). And notably,
Petitioner-prior to filing the instant application for
federal habeas relief-sought mandamus relief from the OCCA
claiming, as he now does before this Court, that the state
trial court had denied him “a full and fair hearing
under Brady vs Maryland . . . .” See
Petitioner's Amended Writ of Mandamus, at 1,
Although the OCCA declined jurisdiction and dismissed the
matter on November 20, 2018, see Order Declining
Jurisdiction, at 3,
it did so because Petitioner had failed to give notice to the
adverse party and not on the merits of his claims. See
Id. Furthermore, should Plaintiff be convicted, he may
raise his federal constitutional claims on direct appeal and
by application for post-conviction relief. See Okla.
Stat. tit. §§ 1051, 1080.
because the State of Oklahoma necessarily has an important
interest in prosecuting crimes that have allegedly occurred
within its jurisdiction, the third Younger condition
are only narrow exceptions to Younger abstention.
Specifically, “federal injunctive relief against
pending state prosecutions [is] appropriate only in cases of
proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state
officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid
conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances
where irreparable injury can be shown . . . .”
Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 85 (1971).
pleadings in this case do not implicate an exception to
Younger abstention-he does not allege that the
State's prosecution was undertaken in bad faith ...