Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Hilts v. No Named Defendants

United States District Court, D. Colorado

May 9, 2019

JAHEEM RASHON HILTS, Plaintiff,
v.
[NO NAMED DEFENDANTS], Defendants.

          RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL

          Gordon P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on the “Statement of Claims” (ECF No. 1).[1]Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for recommendation (ECF No. 12).[2] The Court has considered the entire case file, the applicable law, and is sufficiently advised in the premises. This Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

         I. Factual and Procedural Background

         Jaheem Rashon Hilts is in custody and is housed at the Colorado Mental Health Institute (CMHIP) at Pueblo, Colorado. Mr. Hills initiated this action on January 28, 2019 by submitting, pro se, an incomplete Prisoner Complaint in which he asserts that he is suing the State of Colorado because he is “innocent of the charges holding me in jail which is unlawful imprisonment all the evidence would show innocence in my favor upon review. I want my cases reviewed 18CR1641 - 18CR2052.” (ECF No. 1 at 1). Mr. Hilts also requests monetary relief. (Id. at 3). In addition, Mr. Hilts submitted an unsigned and unsupported Prisoner's Motion for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 3).

         In a January 29, 2019 Order, the Court reviewed Mr. Hilts filings and determined that they were deficient. (ECF No. 4). Mr. Hilts was informed that if he is challenging his detention or placement at CMHIP pursuant to a pending state court criminal proceeding, he must file an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Id.). Conversely, if Mr. Hilts' claims arise from the conditions of his confinement at the CMHIP, he must file a Prisoner Complaint asserting claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Hilts was warned that he may not file a § 2241 action and a § 1983 action in the same case. (Id.).

         The Court directed Mr. Hilts to file, within 30 days of the January 29 Order: (1) a Prisoner Complaint, if pursuing relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and either pay the $400.00 filing fee, or submit a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, along with the supporting documentation; or, (2) an Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, if pursuing federal habeas corpus relief, and to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in a Habeas Corpus Action. (Id. at 2-3). Mr. Hilts was instructed to use the court-approved forms, which he could obtain (with the assistance of his case manager or the facility's legal assistant), at www.cod.uscourts.gov. (Id.). The Court ordered Mr. Hilts to notify the Court promptly if he was unable to obtain copies of the necessary forms. (Id.). Mr. Hilts was warned that failure to cure the filing deficiencies would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.).

         The Court also reminded Mr. Hilts in the January 29 Order that this Court lacked jurisdiction to intervene in his pending state criminal actions absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Therefore, Mr. Hilts was directed to show cause, in writing, within 30 days, why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to the doctrine of Younger abstention. (ECF No. 4 at 3). Mr. Hilts was warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id. at 4).

         Mr. Hilts thereafter filed requests for the clerk of the court to send him copies of the forms for filing a civil rights action. (ECF Nos. 6 and 7). In a March 20 minute order, the Court directed the clerk of the court to send Mr. Hilts copies of the court-approved forms for filing a Prisoner Complaint and a Prisoner's Motion and Affidavit for Leave to Proceed Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 10). Mr. Hilts was instructed to complete and submit the forms to the court within 30 days of the March 20 minute order. (Id.). The Court warned Mr. Hilts that failure to comply would result in dismissal of this action without further notice. (Id.). The docket entry on March 20 indicates that the forms were mailed to Mr. Hilts as ordered.

         Mr. Hilts has now failed to cure the filing deficiencies or respond to the order to show cause. He has not communicated with the Court since February 22, 2019.

         II. Legal Standards

         A. Pro se Litigant

         The Court construes Mr. Hilts' filings liberally because she is not represented by an attorney. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 21 (1972); Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). However, the Court will not act as an advocate for a pro se litigant. See Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.

         B. Younger abstention

         The Court lacks jurisdiction to enjoin or intervene in an ongoing state criminal action absent extraordinary circumstances. See Younger, 401 U.S. 37; Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997). The Younger doctrine “requires a federal court to abstain from hearing a case where . . . (1) state judicial proceedings are ongoing; (2) [that] implicate an important state interest; and (3) the state proceedings offer an adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues.” Winnebago Tribe of Neb. v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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