IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

RODERIC DEMOND JAMES §

 VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-179

ZENA STEPHENS, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Roderic DeMond James, an inmate confined at the Jefferson County Correctional

Facility, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against

Sheriff Zena Stephens and Judge John Stevens. This matter was referred to the undersigned

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and

recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Allegations

In his Complaint (doc. #1), Plaintiff asserts that he is illegally confined. He states that on

July 21, 2021, he was unlawfully arrested and that an illegal search was performed. Plaintiff alleges

he was arrested without a warrant and without probable cause. He states that when he was taken in,

he gave a statement as a result of threat. Plaintiff contends he was never informed of his

constitutional rights. He asks the court to direct that the felony theft charge against him be

dismissed.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court shall dismiss a complaint filed by a prisoner

seeking redress from a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity, if

the complaint “is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or

seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.” A complaint may be

dismissed for failure to state a claim if the plaintiff fails to plead “enough facts to state a claim to

relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). While

Case 1:23-cv-00179-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 14
a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege sufficient facts

to show more than a speculative right to relief. Id. at 555.

Analysis

As described above, Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the state felony charge against him. 

Generally, federal courts do not interfere with ongoing state criminal prosecutions. Younger v.

Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). Federal courts are barred from considering a lawsuit when: (1) the

federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the state has an

important interest in regulating the subject matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate

opportunity to raise constitutional challenges in the state proceeding. Bice v. La. Pub. Defender Bd.,

677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2012). If these three criteria are met, a federal court may exercise

jurisdiction only if one of three exceptions applies. Id. A federal court may disregard Younger if: 

(1) the state court proceeding was brought in bad faith or with the purpose of harassing the plaintiff;

(2) the state statute flagrantly violates constitutional prohibitions as written and as applied in any

circumstance; or (3) application of the Younger doctrine was waived. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Earle,

388 F.3d 515, 519 (5th Cir. 2004).

The Younger abstention doctrine applies in this case because granting Plaintiff the relief he

seeks would interfere with an ongoing state criminal proceeding, the state has an important interest

in enforcing its criminal laws, and Plaintiff has an opportunity to raise his constitutional claims

during the state proceedings. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that any of the three exceptions to

abstention apply in this instance. As Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the state criminal charge against

him, the Younger abstention doctrine prevents consideration of his claim.

Recommendation

This lawsuit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted.

2

Case 1:23-cv-00179-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 15
Objections

Objections must be (1) specific, (2) in writing, and (3) served and filed within ten days after

being served with a copy of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.R.CIV. P. 6(a), 6(b) and 72(b).

A party’s failure to object bars that party from (1) entitlement to de novo review by a district

judge of proposed findings and recommendations, Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th

Cir. 1988), and (2) appellate review, except on grounds of plain error, of unobjected-to factual

findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court, Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n.,

79 F.3d 1415, 1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

3

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 30th day of June, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00179-MJT-CLS Document 4 Filed 06/30/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 16