Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_13-cv-00586/USCOURTS-almd-1_13-cv-00586-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KENNETH CHERCH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-586-WHA 

) [WO] 

OFFICER JIM MOCK, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, Kenneth Cherch, files this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint against Officer

Jim Mock, Corporal Gary Vickers, and Officer Tyler, who are, or were during the incident

made the subject of the complaint, employees of the Geneva Police Department. Plaintiff

alleges that on March 11, 2013, the officers conducted an unlawful search and seizure of his

hotel room resulting in the filing of charges against him after Defendants found

“paraphernalia.” Doc. No. 1.

Defendants have moved to dismiss this action, in part, under the Younger abstention

doctrine because the underlying criminal proceedings against Plaintiff on which the

allegations in his complaint are based remain pending. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37

(1971). The court granted Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the motion to dismiss and

he did so. Doc. Nos. 19, 21. For the reasons set forth below, the court concludes that

Defendants’ motion to dismiss under Younger is due to be granted in part and denied in part

and the claim for monetary damages against Defendants be stayed pending completion of

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 8
Plaintiff’s state court criminal proceedings. Because the court agrees it should abstain from

considering Plaintiff’s action under the Younger doctrine, the court declines to address

Defendants’ remaining arguments.

I. DISCUSSION

A fair reading of the complaint reflects Plaintiff asserts various Fourth Amendment

claims against Defendants. He claims Defendants illegally entered his hotel room when he

was not present to give verbal or written consent and where no exigent circumstances existed

and, therefore, entry and search of his hotel room was unlawful. The court further

understands Plaintiff’s complaint to assert a claimthat Defendants subjected himto an illegal

arrest following the alleged unlawful search and seizure. Doc. No. 1. 

A court may properly abstain from exercising jurisdiction and avoid interfering with

pending state-level proceedings based on the Younger abstention doctrine. Younger

demands abstention “where granting the requested relief would require adjudication of

federal constitutional issues involved in the pending state action.” Traverso v. Penn, 874 F.2d

209, 212 (4th Cir. 1989); see Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 84-85 (1971) (“The propriety

of arrests and the admissibility of evidence in state criminal prosecutions are ordinarily

matters to be resolved by state tribunals, subject, of course, to review by certiorari or appeal

in this Court or, in a proper case, on federal habeas corpus.” (internal citation omitted)).

Younger directs federal courts to abstain fromgranting injunctive or declaratoryrelief

that would interfere with pending state or local criminal proceedings based under principles

2

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 8
of comity and federalism that a federal court should not interfere with ongoing state criminal

proceedings except under very limited circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45; For Your

Eyes Alone, Inc. v. City of Columbus, Ga., 281 F.3d 1209, 1215-16 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing

Younger). “In order to decide whether the federal proceeding would interfere with the state

proceeding, [the court] look[s] to the relief requested and the effect it would have on the state

proceedings. The relief sought need not directly interfere with an ongoing proceeding or

terminate an ongoing proceeding in order for Younger abstention to be required.” 31 Foster

Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted). Rather, “[t]he

question . . . is threefold; first, do [the proceedings] constitute an ongoing state judicial

proceeding; second, do the proceedings implicate important state interests; and third, is there

an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” Id. at

1274 (quotation omitted). Exceptions to this rule include situations where (1) irreparable

injury as a result of the prosecution is both great and immediate; (2) the state law flagrantly

and patently violates the federal constitution; (3) there is a showing of bad faith or

harassment; or (4) other unusual circumstances exist that require equitable relief. Mitchum

v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 230 (1972) (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 43); Allee v. Medrano, 416

U.S. 802, 836 (1974). 

There is adequate opportunity for Plaintiff to raise his constitutional claims in his state

court criminal proceeding, pre-trial and at trial, and in any direct and collateral appeals he

may file if convicted. Plaintiff has not alleged that pending state court proceedings regarding

3

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 3 of 8
the charge(s) made the subject of his complaint will not provide him with an adequate

opportunity to raise his federal constitutional concerns. Further, Plaintiff has alleged no

prosecutorial or judicial bad faith, nor is any bad faith apparent from the record. Plaintiff’s

Fourth Amendment claims, to the extent he seeks injunctive or declaratory relief, are due to

be dismissed as federalism concerns require the court to abstain from considering such 

claims for equitable relief. An adequate remedy at law exists because Plaintiff may pursue 

his federal constitutional issues through the Alabama state court system. See Doby v.

Strength, 758 F.2d 1405 (11th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). Accordingly, the court finds the

Younger doctrine applies to those claims for which injunctive and/or declaratory relief is

requested.

A number of lower courts have determined Younger should also apply to federal §

1983 actions requesting money damages. See Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 979 n.

13 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that almost every circuit to address the issue, has recognized that

Younger principles apply“in some fashion” to damages actions); see also Heck v. Humphrey,

512 U.S. 477, 487 n.8 (1994) ( “if a state criminal defendant brings a federal civil-rights

lawsuit during the pendency of his criminal trial, appeal, or state habeas action, abstention

may be an appropriate response to the parallel state-court proceedings”); Doby, 758 F.2d at

1406 (ordering district court to abstain from resolving merits of petitioner’s claim until state

conviction reviewed by state appellate court).

Since Plaintiff’s claims for damages stem from the legitimacy of the search of his

4

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 4 of 8
hotel room which gave rise to evidence underlying his pending state court criminal

proceedings, they implicate the same grounds for abstention as implicated by any claims for

injunctive and/or declaratory relief. Any decision could substantially interfere with, and

potentially undermine, the results reached in the state court proceeding. Consequently,

staying the federal proceeding pending resolution of the state court proceedings is an

appropriate course of action. This is consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wallace

v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007), that where a plaintiff files a civil claim “related to rulings that

will likely be made in a pending or anticipated criminal trial[ ], it is within the power of the

district court . . . to stay the civil action until the criminal case . . . is ended.” Id. at 393-94;

see also Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 730 (1996) (holding that for a claim

for damages, the parallel federal action should be stayed rather than dismissed); Pompey v.

Broward Cnty., 95 F.3d 1543, 1552 n.12 (11th Cir. 1996) (“It is doubtful that federal district

courts may dismiss claims for damages under abstention principles.”); Jones v. Takaki, 1993

WL 41420 *3 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 18, 1993) (“Most significantly, given the doctrine of res

judicata, the basic policy against federal interference with pending state criminal

prosecutions generally will be frustrated as much by a damages award as it would be by

either declaratory relief or an injunction.”). 

Having concluded the Younger doctrine applies and none of the exceptions to the

doctrine preclude abstention, the court deems it appropriate to recommend this action be

5

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 5 of 8
stayed. A stay, as opposed to dismissal, is appropriate when, as is the case here, Plaintiff

1

seeks monetary relief and such claims for damages cannot be addressed in the state court.2

See Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 202 (1988). 

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is due to be granted

with respect to any claims for equitable relief against Defendants and such claims shall be

dismissed without prejudice because of this court’s invocation of the Younger abstention

doctrine. Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s claim for damages is due

to be denied, and Plaintiff’s claim for damages under § 1983 is due to be stayed pending the

outcome of the state court proceedings.

In light of the foregoing, it is 

ORDERED that if Plaintiff wishes to continue with this case after disposition of the

state criminal charges against him, he must, within thirty (30) days of the final disposition

of the criminal charges (including all pertinent appeals and/or collateral appeals), file a

request that the stay be lifted and the case be re-opened. Any such request to lift the stay

must be accompanied bydocumentaryevidence showing the state criminal court proceedings

are concluded. If the stay is lifted, the action will proceed at that time, absent any other bar

to suit. Accordingly, it is further 

In so doing, the court has not spoken to, nor offered any opinion on, the merits of any of Plaintiff’s

1

allegations or claims raised under the Fourth Amendment and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants’ reference to the court’s decision Pollard v. Shirey, et al., Civil Action No. 3:12-CV- 2

292-TMH (M.D. Ala. 20212), is noted. For purposes of the instant proceeding, the undersigned concludes

the findings and conclusions made herein are appropriate.

6

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 6 of 8
ORDERED that on or before September 22, 2014, Plaintiff shall file a notice

regarding the status of the criminal case made the subject of the instant proceeding. Plaintiff

shall file a new notice of status update regarding said criminal case proceedings every ninety

(90) days thereafter unless, in the interim, he files a request to lift the stay in accord with the

above directives. Plaintiff is cautioned that his failure to timely and fully comply with the

court’s directives will result a Recommendation that his remaining claims be dismissed

without further notice.

II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that:

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) be GRANTED regarding any claims

for equitable relief against them and such claims be dismissed without prejudice;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) be DENIED regarding Plaintiff’s §

1983 claim for damages;

3. Plaintiff’s damages claim against Defendants be STAYED pending resolution of

the related state criminal case proceedings.

4. The Clerk be DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this case.

It is further

ORDERED that the parties are DIRECTED to file any objections to the said

Recommendation on or before September 8, 2014. Any objections filed must specifically

identify the findings in the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation to which the party is

7

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 7 of 8
objecting. Frivolous, conclusive, or general objections will not be considered by the District

Court. The parties are advised that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and,

therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations in the

Magistrate Judge’s report shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the District

Court of issues covered in the report and shall bar the party from attacking on appeal factual

findings in the report accepted or adopted by the District Court except upon grounds of plain

error or manifest injustice. Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5thCir. 1982); see Stein v.

Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 33 (11th Cir. 1982); see also Bonner v. City of Prichard,

661 F.2d 1206 (11thCir. 1981) (en banc), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30,

1981. 

Done this 25th day of August, 2014.

/s/ Wallace Capel, Jr.

WALLACE CAPEL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

Case 1:13-cv-00586-WHA-WC Document 23 Filed 08/25/14 Page 8 of 8