James v. City of Missoula et al, No. 9:2006cv00171 - Document 3 (D. Mont. 2006)
Court Description: ORDER granting 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Wendell James, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Wendell James. Objections to F&R due by 11/21/2006. Signed by Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch on 11/6/2006. (TCL, Tim)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
James v. City of Missoula et al Doc. 3 Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION _____________________________________________ WENDELL JAMES, CAUSE NO. CV 06-171-M-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE vs. CITY OF MISSOULA, Defendant. _____________________________________________ I. INTRODUCTION AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION The Plaintiff has filed a Complaint together with an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Because it appears the Plaintiff lacks sufficient funds to prosecute this action IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that his Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. This action may proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The federal statute under which leave to proceed in forma pauperis is permitted also requires the Court to conduct a ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 2 of 6 preliminary screening of the allegations set forth in the Complaint. The statute states as follows: (2) Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that– (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or (B) the action or appeal– (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court will review the Plaintiff’s Complaint to consider whether it can survive dismissal under these provisions. See Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138, 1142 (9th Cir. 2005). II. PLAINTIFF’S ALLEGATIONS The Plaintiff filed his Complaint on October 31, 2006, alleging claims apparently stemming from his recent arrest by law enforcement officers of the Defendant City of Missoula. He states two city police officers arrested him on two warrants, but they did not present the warrants to the Plaintiff. Upon his appearance in court he again states he was not shown the warrants or any tickets. The Plaintiff complains that there is no evidence against him yet the state court still set his case for a pre-trial proceeding on November 14, 2006. ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 2 For his relief he Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 3 of 6 requests that the Court award him $50,000, and that the Court secure the return of his vehicle from Red’s Towing. III. DISCUSSION The Court will construe the Plaintiff’s Complaint as filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To sustain an action under section 1983, a plaintiff must show (1) that the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law; and (2) that the conduct deprived the plaintiff of a federal constitutional or statutory right. Wood v. Ostrander, 879 F.2d 583, 587 (9th Cir. 1989). Such construction is appropriate since the Plaintiff names the City of Missoula as a Defendant, and in his allegations he refers to two city police officers who effected his arrest. Allegations against either a municipality or individual actors describing conduct committed under color of state law can fall under § 1983. Monell v. Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978). Based on all of the Plaintiff’s allegations, and in light of his pending proceedings in either justice court or state court, the Court finds this case is subject to dismissal based on federal principles of abstention. There is a strong policy against federal intervention in state judicial processes in the absence of great and immediate irreparable injury to the federal plaintiff. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). “As a matter of comity, federal courts should maintain respect for state functions and should not unduly interfere with the state's ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 3 Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 4 of 6 good faith efforts to enforce its own laws in its own courts.” Dubinka v. Superior Court, 23 F.3d 218, 223 (9th Cir. 1994) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-44 (1971)). Younger directs federal courts to abstain from granting injunctive or declaratory relief that would interfere with pending state judicial proceedings. Martinez v. Newport Beach City, 125 F.3d 777, 781 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Younger, at 40-41). When applicable, Younger abstention requires dismissal of the federal action, not a stay. The San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998). The federal courts may raise the issue of Younger abstention sua sponte. Martinez, at 781 n.3 (citing Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143-44 n.10 (1976)). See also The San Remo Hotel, 145 F.3d at 1103 n.5. The Ninth Circuit has stated that Younger abstention is appropriate if "(1) there are ongoing state judicial proceedings, (2) the proceedings implicate important state interests, and (3) there is an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise federal questions." Gartrell Constr., Inc. v. Aubry, 940 F.2d 437, 441 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)). Stated another way, [i]f a state-initiated proceeding is ongoing, and if it implicates important state interests [...], and if the ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 4 Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 5 of 6 federal litigant is not barred from litigating federal constitutional issues in that proceeding, then a federal court action that would enjoin the proceeding, or have the practical effect of doing so, would interfere in a way that Younger disapproves. Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 978 (9th Cir. 2004). As stated above, the Plaintiff advises he is currently scheduled for a pre-trial proceeding on November 14, 2006, relative to the criminal charges pending against him as described in his Complaint filed in this action. The subject of this lawsuit stems from on-going proceedings against the Plaintiff for the enforcement of state criminal laws and, therefore, this lawsuit clearly implicates important state interests. In his state or justice court proceedings Plaintiff will have procedural rights to be heard and the opportunity to raise any state or federal constitutional issues in defense of his case, including any constitutional issues alleged in this case. Finally, the Court finds that any relief it could grant as the Plaintiff requests would, in effect, declare that the Defendant violated his federal constitutional rights, and thus would have the practical effect of enjoining the state court proceedings. If this Court were to proceed with this action it would interfere with the state court proceedings in a way that Younger disapproves. Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby enters the following: ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 5 Case 9:06-cv-00171-DWM Document 3 Filed 11/06/2006 Page 6 of 6 RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff’s Complaint should be DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to the Younger abstention doctrine. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge upon the parties. The parties are advised that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, any objections to these findings must be filed with the Clerk of Court and copies served on opposing counsel within ten (10) days after receipt hereof, or objection is waived. DATED this 6th day of November, 2006. /s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE/ PAGE 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
