United States District Court, D. Colorado
RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL
P. Gallagher, United States Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the Court on the “Statement of
Claims” (ECF No. 1).Plaintiff proceeds pro se. The
matter has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for
recommendation (ECF No. 12). 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.
Factual and Procedural Background
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).
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.
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.).
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).
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.
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.
Pro se Litigant
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.
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. ...