United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Plaintiff, William Amison, presently confined at the Jackson
County Jail in Jackson, Michigan, has filed a pro se
civil rights complaint. Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below,
the Court will dismiss the complaint without prejudice.
Standard of Review
21, 2018, this Court granted Plaintiff's Application to
Proceed without Prepaying Fees or Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). Dkt 4. Section 1915(e)(2)(B) provides that
the court shall dismiss a case brought by a litigant
proceeding in forma pauperis at any time if the
court determines that the action or appeal is, inter
alia, frivolous or malicious. 28 U.S.C. §
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25,
32 (1992). Sua sponte dismissal is appropriate if
the complaint lacks an arguable basis when filed. McGore
v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 612 (6th Cir. 1997);
Goodell v. Anthony, 157 F.Supp.2d 796, 799 (E.D.
complaint indicates that he is a pretrial detainee who has
been charged with criminal offenses related to a heroin
overdose death and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Dkt.
1. Petitioner's criminal case is currently pending in the
Jackson Circuit Court. Plaintiff claims that he has been the
victim of police and prosecutorial misconduct. See
Dkt. 1. Plaintiff also contends that the police violated his
Fourth Amendment rights in the search and seizure of his
vehicle, and that three civilian witnesses gave false
statements and testimony. See Id. He asserts that he
has already been tried once, but the jury was unable to reach
a verdict. Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and “to be
released from jail, due to the state not having a case
against me.” Dkt. 1, at 8.
complaint is subject to summary dismissal under Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45 (1971). In Younger,
the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts
should not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings except
in a “very unusual circumstance” where an
injunction is necessary to prevent “both great and
immediate” irreparable injury. See Id. The
cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of a defendant having to
defend against a single criminal prosecution cannot be
considered in itself to constitute irreparable injury.
Instead, the threat to a state criminal defendant's
federally protected rights must be one that “cannot be
eliminated by his defense against a single criminal
prosecution.” Id. at 46. The holding in
Younger was based on principles of equity and upon
the “more vital consideration” of the principles
of comity and federalism. Id. at 44. Thus, in cases
in which a criminal defendant is seeking to enjoin ongoing
state court proceedings- whether they be criminal, civil, or
administrative-federal courts should not exercise
jurisdiction, but should instead dismiss the case in its
entirety. Kish v. Michigan State Bd. of Law
Examiners, 999 F.Supp. 958, 965 (E.D. Mich. 1998)
(internal citations omitted).
three-factor test applies in determining whether the
Younger abstention doctrine should apply:
1. are there pending or ongoing state judicial proceedings;
2. do these proceedings implicate important state interests;
3. is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings
to raise ...