Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

William Jones, Pro Se v. Eric Schneiderman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


November 10, 2011

WILLIAM JONES, PRO SE, PLAINTIFF,
v.
ERIC SCHNEIDERMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK; THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dora L. Irizarry, United States District Judge:

SUMMARY ORDER

Pro se*fn1 Plaintiff William Jones is currently incarcerated at Rikers Island for criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in violation of New York Penal Law ("N.Y.P.L.") § 265.03. Plaintiff brings the instant action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403 challenging the constitutionality of N.Y.P.L. § 265.03. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that N.Y.P.L. § 265.03 requires that a weapon be recovered, but in his case "there was never any weapon(s) recovered. Therefore, [he is] challenging said charges; as a Constitutional basis. To verify, demonstrate and indicate my innocence." (Compl. at 2.) The Court grants plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for purposes of this Order. However, for the reasons set forth below, this action is dismissed.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, a district court "shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." Upon review, a district court shall dismiss a prisoner complaint sua sponte if the complaint "(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A (b).

In general, a district court may not enjoin an ongoing state prosecution, regardless of whether the law under which the plaintiff was being prosecuted is constitutional. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971). The Second Circuit has held that, unless the plaintiff can show extraordinary circumstances to warrant intervention in the ongoing proceeding, "Younger abstention is appropriate when: 1) there is an ongoing state proceeding; 2) an important state interest is implicated; and 3) the plaintiff has an avenue open for review of constitutional claims in the state court." Hansel v. Town Court for the Town of Springfield, N.Y., 56 F. 3d 391, 393 (2d Cir. 1995).

Here, the criminal case against plaintiff is still pending.*fn2 Moreover, New York has an important state interest in enforcing its criminal laws, and Plaintiff is free to raise his constitutional claims in the pending criminal proceedings. See id. at 393-94("it is axiomatic that a state's interest in the administration of criminal justice within its borders is an important one" and because the plaintiff "is free to raise his constitutional claims before a legally trained judge . . . after conviction on direct appeal, [thus, the plaintiff] can assert no bar to having his constitutional argument heard before the state courts") (citations omitted); see also Schlagler v. Phillips, 166 F. 3d 439, 442-44 (2d Cir. 1999) (Younger abstention applied to dismiss complaint alleging violation of criminal defendant's constitutional rights). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts that would bring his case within any exception for extraordinary circumstances. Thus, plaintiff's constitutional claims regarding his pending criminal case must be dismissed. See Hansel, 56 F. 3d at 393.

Accordingly, this action is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Because the Court did not consider whether the state law is constitutional, the Court declines to certify this question to the Attorney General of the State of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2403. See Johnson v. Artuz, 182 F. 3d 900, at *1 (2d Cir. 1999); Romaine v. Rawson, 2004 WL 1013316, at *2 n.1 (N.D.N.Y. May 6, 2004). The court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and, therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).

SO ORDERED.

DORA L. IRIZARRY United States District Judge


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.