Martin v. United States of America - Document 5
Court Description:
ORDER Dismissing Case. Signed by U. S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Viken on 9/2/11. (SB)
Loading PDF...
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
WESTERN DIVISION
MARK E. MARTIN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIV. 11-5069-JLV
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE CEASE AND
DESIST ORDER AND
PROTECTIVE ORDER (TRO)
On August 9, 2011, in the Fourth Judicial Circuit Court, the state of
South Dakota indicted plaintiff Mark Martin on two drug-related offenses.
(Docket 4-1). On August 29, 2011, in the United States District Court for the
District of South Dakota, Mr. Martin filed a motion seeking to enjoin the state
from going forward with its prosecution. (Docket 4).
The court notes it has subject matter jurisdiction over the action because
Mr. Martin alleges a violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against double
jeopardy as applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. See
28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question). However, the Anti-Injunction Act
precludes the court from enjoining state proceedings except in limited
circumstances, none of which apply here.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The court
1
Because the Anti-Injunction Act bars relief, the court need not consider
the abstention doctrine articulated in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971),
and its progeny. See Ward v. Simpers, No. RDB-07-3266, 2008 WL 2271486 at
*6, n. 10 (D. Md. May 29, 2008) (noting the Anti-Injunction Act and the
Younger doctrine operate independently); Londono-Rivera v. Virginia, 155 F.
Supp. 2d 551, 559 (E.D. Va. 2001) (noting an injunction of a state criminal
proceeding is only appropriate if circumstances meet the requirements of both
the Anti-Injunction Act and the Younger doctrine).
does not have the authority to grant Mr. Martin the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Mr. Martin’s motion (Docket 4) is denied. The action is
dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Martin’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (Docket 3) is denied as moot because the $350 filing fee is not due.
Dated September 2, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Jeffrey L. Viken__________________________
JEFFREY L. VIKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
