Brookshire v. Unnamed Defendant, No. 1:2009cv01612 - Document 2 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER AND OPINION the Court finds that Brookshire did not intend to file a civil action at this time, this case is Dismissed Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 7/10/09. (dr)
Download PDF
FILED IN CHAMBEF THOMAS W . THRASH U. S. D. C. Atl an ta JCL 10 2009 JAMES N . HATT N , Cle k IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~;. aerk FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA i]eput ATLANTA DIVISION WENDY BROOKSHIRE, GDC # 1058337, Plaintiff, PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S .C . §X983 CIVIL ACTION NO . 1 :09-CV-1612-TWT V. UNNAMED DEFENDANT, Defendant. ORDER AND OPINION Wendy Brookshire, an inmate at the Metro State Prison in Atlanta, Georgia, has submitted a letter to the Court which the Clerk has filed as a civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S .C . § 1983 . However, it does not appear that Brookshire intended to file such an action at this time . In her letter, Brookshire states that she has been charged in state court with theft by deception and that her probation was revoked because of the charges . Brookshire contends that she is innocent of the charges, and she seeks assistance in the investigation of the facts surrounding her case . To the extent that Brookshire seeks to challenge the validity of her current detention and pending charges, she cannot do so in a § 1983 action . A habeas corpus petition is the proper vehicle for raising claims that may affect the fact or duration AO 72A (Rev. 8182) of a criminal defendant's confinement . See Preiser v . Rodriguez, 411 U .S. 475,488490 (1973) . Thus, Brookshire must seek habeas corpus relief . However, this Court will not construe Brookshire's letter as a habeas corpus petition since it appears that Srookshire's state criminal proceedings are ongoing . The Supreme Court in Younger v . Harris, 401 U .S . 37 (1971 ), held that, except in extraordinary circumstances, a federal court must abstain from deciding issues implicated in an ongoing criminal proceeding in state court . Younger, 401 U .S . at 53-54; Maharaj v . Sec'y for Dept of Corr., 304 F .3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2.002) . If the relief sought would disrupt the state criminal proceeding, it is generally prohibited by the Younger doctrine . In the instant case, it appears that Brookshire's state criminal proceedings are ongoing . Thus, this Court must abstain from interfering in Brookshire's state criminal action . Extraordinary circumstances may justify intervention in a situation where a petitioner alleges great, immediate and irreparable injury or flagrant violation of an express constitutional prohibition . See Young, 401 U .S . at 46 . However, Brookshire has not alleged irreparable injury or a flagrant violation of her rights . Moreover, before Brookshire may seek habeas corpus relief in this Court, she must first exhaust her state court remedies which she apparently has not done . 2 AO 72A (Rev . 8182) Brookshire may challenge the legality of her detention by filing a petition for state habeas corpus relief pursuant to O .C .G.A. § 9-14-1(a). Brookshire has made no showing or argument that would tend to indicate that the available state process is ineffective to protect her rights . So long as review is available in the Georgia courts, "this Court is precluded from the consideration of the substance of [Brookshire's claims] until the issues have been squarely and fairly presented to the Georgia courts for their consideration." Fields v . Tankersley, 487 F . Supp. 1389, 1391 (S .D . Ga. 1980). Brookshire may seek federal habeas corpus relief in this Court after she has exhausted the remedies available to her in the state courts . As the Court finds that Brookshire did not intend to file a civil action at this time, IT IS ORDERED that the instant action be DIS MISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE . IT IS SO ORDERED this 16 day of 52009 . THOMAS W . THRASH, JR . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 AO 72A (Rev . 8182)