UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RYHEEME R. WOOD, :

:

Petitioner : No. 4:CV-10-1298

:

vs. : (Petition Filed 06/22/10) 

:

: (Judge Muir)

WARDEN JOHN WETZEL, :

et al., :

:

Respondents :

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

June 25, 2010

Ryheeme Wood, an inmate presently confined at the Franklin

County Prison, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, filed this petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Doc. 1). 

He challenges ongoing state criminal proceedings in the Court of

Common Pleas of Franklin County. The petition has been given

preliminary consideration and, for the reasons discussed below,

the court will dismiss this action without prejudice because

there are ongoing state court criminal proceedings. See R.

GOVERNING § 2254 CASES R. 4.1

1. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Habeas Corpus Cases

provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]f it plainly appears

from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 1 of 7
I. Background

Wood was arrested on December 12, 2009, by the Washington

Township Police Department and charged with one count of

carrying a firearm without a license and one count of a person

not to possess a firearm. (Doc. 1, petition). Petitioner was

placed in the Franklin County Jail in lieu of $50,000.00 bail. 

Id. On February 3, 2010, Wood was arraigned in the Franklin

County Court of Common Pleas, where he entered a plea of not

guilty. Id. His trial was scheduled for May, 2010. Id. 

On March 5, 2010, Wood filed a motion to suppress evidence,

and on April 27, 2010, he filed his supporting brief. (Doc. 1,

Exs. A and B, motion and brief in support). 

By Order dated April 29, 2010, the Franklin County Court of

Common Pleas granted Wood’s motion to suppress. (Doc. 1, Ex. D,

Order of Court). 

On May 3, 2010, the Commonwealth filed a Notice of Appeal

to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. (Doc. 1, Ex. H, Notice of

Appeal). The appeal is currently pending. See Commonwealth of

Pa. v. Wood, CP-28- CR-0002202-2009, Criminal Docket Sheet. 

the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to

notify the petitioner.”

2

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 2 of 7
On May 5, 2010, in response to Wood’s motion to reduce bail,

the Court denied Wood’s motion, directing that bail remain at

$50,000.00. (Doc. 1, Ex. F, Order of Court). 

By Order dated May 13, 2010, Wood’s case was continued to

the July trial term. See Commonwealth of Pa. v. Wood, CP-28-

CR-0002202-2009, Criminal Docket Sheet. 

On June 22, 2010, Wood filed the instant petition for writ

of habeas corpus, in which he seeks, inter alia, his

“unconditional and immediate release under extraordinary

circumstances and miscarriage of justice.” (Doc. 1, petition). 

II. Discussion

Generally, federal courts must adjudicate all cases and

controversies that are properly before them. New Orleans Pub.

Serv., Inc. v. City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 358, 109 S.Ct.

2506, 105 L.Ed.2d 298 (1989). Abstention, however, “is the

judicially created doctrine under which a federal court will

decline to exercise its jurisdiction so that a state court or

state agency will have the opportunity to decide the matters at

issue.” Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp., 671 F.2d 743, 746

(3d Cir.1982). In Younger v. Harris, the United States Supreme

Court “established a principle of abstention when federal

3

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 3 of 7
adjudication would disrupt an ongoing state criminal

proceeding.” Yi Yang v. Tsui, 416 F.3d 199, 202 (3d Cir.2005)

(discussing Younger, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)). The Younger Court

based its decision on the principles of comity and “the

longstanding public policy against federal court interference

with state court proceedings.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 43. Absent

extraordinary circumstances,2 Younger abstention will apply when

the following three requirements are met: “(1) there are ongoing

state proceedings that are judicial in nature; (2) the state

proceedings implicate important state interests; and (3) the

state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the

federal claims.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, No. 09-1342, --- F.3d

----, 2010 WL 27216, at *3 (3d Cir. January 7, 2010) (quoting

Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton, 411 F.3d 399,

408 (3d Cir.2005)). 

2. Even when all requirements are met, Younger abstention is

not appropriate when “(1) the state proceedings are being

undertaken in bad faith or for purposes of harassment or (2)

some other extraordinary circumstances exist, such as

proceedings pursuant to a flagrantly unconstitutional statute

....” Schall v. Joyce, 885 F.2d 101, 106 (3d Cir.1989). These

exceptions are to be narrowly construed. Loftus v. Township of

Lawrence Park, 764 F. Supp. 354, 357 (W.D. Pa. 1991). Wood has

failed to show that he falls within any of the narrow

exceptions to the Younger doctrine.

4

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 4 of 7
Indeed, “[i]n no area of the law is the need for a federal

court to stay its hand pending completion of state proceedings

more evident than in the case of pending criminal proceedings.”

Evans v. Court of Common Pleas, 959 F.2d 1227, 1234 (3d

Cir.1992). It is clear that Wood’s claims concerning his ongoing

criminal proceedings satisfy the requirements of abstention, and

the instant habeas action does not raise the type of

extraordinary circumstances contemplated under Younger. Thus,

under the present circumstances, the Court concludes that it is

appropriate to abstain from entertaining the petition, as

abstention is required out of deference to the integrity of the

state judicial process. Accordingly, the petition will be

dismissed without prejudice.

III. Certificate of Appealability

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”), an

appeal may not be taken from a final order in a proceeding under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if the applicant has made

a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the

5

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 5 of 7
district court’s resolution of his constitutional claims or that

jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate to

deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003).“When the district court denies a

habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the

prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue

when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would

find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of

the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason

would find it debatable whether the district court was correct

in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000). Here, jurists of reason would not find the procedural

disposition of this case debatable. Accordingly, no COA will

issue.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

Dated: June 25, 2010 s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR

United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RYHEEME R. WOOD, :

6

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 6 of 7
:

Petitioner : No. 4:CV-10-1298

:

vs. : (Petition Filed 06/22/10) 

:

: (Judge Muir)

WARDEN JOHN WETZEL, :

et al., :

:

Respondents :

ORDER

June 25, 2010

For the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is

DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c).

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this

case.

s/Malcolm Muir 

MUIR

United States District Judge

7

Case 4:10-cv-01298-MM-DB Document 3 Filed 06/25/10 Page 7 of 7