Source: http://ok.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20190311_0000323.WOK.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2020-07-12 19:19:58
Document Index: 211445570

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1983', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1983', '§ 1983']

FindACase™ | Pilson v. Grand Casino
Pilson v. Grand Casino
DONALD PILSON, JR., Plaintiff,
GRAND CASINO, et. al., Defendants.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, brings this action purportedly pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Having reviewed the sufficiency of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B), the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's action be dismissed without prejudice.
In Plaintiff's initial Complaint, he asserted that he was wrongfully arrested and subsequently charged with a crime based on an incident that occurred at Grand Casino located in Shawnee, Oklahoma. See generally Doc. No. 1. He asserted that someone at Grand Casino falsified a police report, leading him to be wrongfully imprisoned. Id. at 3. He explained that he was arrested for assaulting a woman, the witness for the District Attorney could not identify him, the assault charge was dropped, but he was bound over for trial. Id. Plaintiff also stated that his attorney refused to go trial, which resulted in Plaintiff being forced into a blind plea agreement. Id. at 4. The state court judge ordered drug treatment with a review but he never received the review, which Plaintiff contends became a breach of the court's agreement. Id. at 5. Rather than stating the relief he was seeking by this action, Plaintiff stated only that he seeks relief because he is “being wrongfully treated.” Id. at 7.
This Court issued an Order directing Plaintiff to amend his pleading. Doc. No. 12. The Court explained that it was unclear from Plaintiff's pleading whether he intended to challenge a wrongful conviction, properly brought as an action for writ of habeas corpus, or was seeking monetary damages based on alleged violations of his constitutional rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. The Court directed Plaintiff to file either an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus or an Amended Complaint for a § 1983 action no later than March 6, 2019. Id. at 7. Instead, Plaintiff filed both an Amended Complaint, see Doc. No. 13, and an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Doc. No. 13-1. As explained below, however, both actions warrant dismissal.
1. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Screening
2. Habeas Screening
III. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 Action
Plaintiff's claims arise from his 2015 arrest and subsequent conviction of attempted robbery by force or fear and possession of a stolen vehicle after former conviction of two or more felonies. See Oklahoma State Courts Network, District Court of Pottawatomie County, No. CF-2015-35.[1] Plaintiff did not directly appeal his conviction but did file an Application for Post-Conviction Relief on May 2, 2018. Id. On October 17, 2018, the state district court denied the same. Id.; Doc. No. 13-1 at 10. Plaintiff appealed this denial on November 29, 2018, to the Oklahoma court of Criminal Appeals (“OCCA”) and that appeal remains pending. See Oklahoma State Courts Network, OCCA, No. PC-2018-1201.[2]
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;State records clearly indicate, as does Plaintiff&#39;s Amended Complaint and additional filings, that the state criminal proceeding underlying Plaintiff&#39;s arrest is ongoing. As a result, under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Court should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over ...