Triplet v. Ninh

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

STEVEN MONTRAIL TRIPLET, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Case No. CIV-24-659-JD

)

VAN NINH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Steven Montrail Triplet (Plaintiff), a state pretrial detainee appearing in

this Court pro se, seeks civil rights relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docs. 6, 10.1

United States District Judge Jodi W. Dishman has referred the matter to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 5. Plaintiff claims state officials violated his

constitutional rights during an encounter at his home and during his

subsequent arrest and criminal charges. Doc. 10, at 5-12. He seeks injunctive

relief and a declaratory judgment, as well as monetary relief and for the officers

involved to be arrested. Id.2 The undersigned recommends the Court abstain

1 Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation

and pagination. Apart from alterations to capitalization, quotations are

verbatim unless indicated.

2 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Doc. 10, which serves

as the operative complaint. See, e.g., Davis v. TXO Prod. Corp., 929

F.2d 1515, 1517 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[A]n amended complaint ordinarily

from exercising jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s amended complaint under the

Younger abstention doctrine. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971).

I. Screening.

Federal law requires the Court to screen complaints filed by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss the

complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. Id. § 1915A(b).

This Court construes “[a] pro se litigant’s pleadings . . . liberally,” holding

them “to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”

Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991); see Haines v. Kerner, 404

U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per curiam). The Court, however, may not serve as

Plaintiff’s advocate, creating arguments on his behalf. See Yang v.

Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008).

supersedes the original and renders it of no legal effect.” (quoting Int’l Controls

Corp. v. Vesco, 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977)).

2

II. Background and Plaintiff’s claims.

Plaintiff was charged with one count of child neglect and one count of

domestic abuse in the presence of a minor, both felony charges. State v. Triplet,

No. CF-2024-552,

https://www.oscn.net/dockets/GetCaseInformation.aspx?db=oklahoma&numb

er=CF-2024-552&cmid=4278674 (last visited Aug. 23, 2024); see also United

States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (exercising

“discretion to take judicial notice of publicly-filed records in our court and

certain other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition

of the case at hand”). That prosecution is ongoing, and a formal arraignment

is currently scheduled for September 18, 2024. Triplet, Docket Entry dated

Aug. 16, 2024.

III. Plaintiff’s amended complaint.

Plaintiff sues Midwest City Police Officers Van Ninh, Kyle Croft, Jacob

Embery, and B. Fisher, as well as the City of Midwest City and the Midwest

City Police Department. Doc. 10, at 1, 3-4, 7.

Liberally construing the amended complaint, Plaintiff’s claims arise

from police officers’ arriving at his home in the middle of the night. Id. at 5-6.

Plaintiff was arrested (and later charged) based on an arrest warrant

3

supported by Defendant Ninh’s affidavit to the Oklahoma County District

Court, which Plaintiff alleges was false. Id. at 7-8.

Plaintiff first claims Defendants Ninh and Croft violated his Fourth

Amendment rights when they unlawfully broke into his apartment and

endangered his one-year-old child. Id. at 5-6. Plaintiff next claims that

Defendants Ninh, Embery, and Fisher violated his Fourth Amendment rights

when they illegally broke into his home and Defendant Ninh later submitted a

false affidavit seeking a warrant that resulted in his arrest. Id. at 6-8.

Plaintiff next claims Defendants Embery and Ninh violated his

Fourteenth Amendment rights when the “Oklahoma County District

Attorney’s Office filed charges using the false affidavits.” Id. at 8. Plaintiff next

claims Defendants Ninh and Embery violated his First Amendment free

speech rights, alleging Defendant Embery submitted a false affidavit “stating

he identified [his] family’s car by tag number at 11:00 p.m., but has no

evidence” and that “[h]aving [P]laintiff put in jail was an attempt to keep him

from telling the truth.” Id. at 9. Finally, Plaintiff claims Defendants Croft and

Ninh, as well as the Midwest City Police Department, violated his Fourteenth

Amendment due process and equal protection rights by “refusing to turn

4

valu[]able evidence over in the charges that [] [P]laintiff is currently held in

custody for.” Id. at 11.

IV. Analysis.

A. The Younger doctrine requires this Court’s abstention.

“Younger is a doctrine of abstention.” Graff v. Aberdeen Enterprizes, II,

Inc., 65 F.4th 500, 523 n.32 (10th Cir. 2023) (quoting D.A. Osguthorpe Family

P’ship v. ASC Utah, Inc., 705 F.3d 1223, 1231 (10th Cir. 2013)). “An abstention

doctrine is one under which a District Court may decline to exercise or

postpone the exercise of its jurisdiction.” Id. (quoting D.A. Osguthorpe Family

P’ship, 705 F.3d at 1231). Because Plaintiff’s criminal prosecution is pending

in the Oklahoma County District Court, this Court should postpone the

exercise of jurisdiction over this matter.3 See id. at 522 (“In exceptional

circumstances, . . . abstention doctrines may . . . permit or require the federal

court to stay or dismiss the federal action in favor of the state-court litigation.”

(quoting Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292

(2005))).

3 The Court “may raise the issue of abstention sua sponte.” D.A.

Osguthorpe Family P’ship, 705 F.3d at 1231.

5

“Congress has . . . manifested a desire to permit state courts to try state

cases free from interference by federal courts.” Younger, 401 U.S. at 43. So, “a

federal court must abstain from deciding a case otherwise within the scope of

its jurisdiction in ‘certain instances in which the prospect of undue interference

with state proceedings counsels against federal relief.’” Elna Sefcovic, LLC v.

TEP Rocky Mountain, LLC, 953 F.3d 660, 669-70 (10th Cir. 2020) (quoting

Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013)). One instance is an

ongoing state criminal prosecution. Graff, 65 F.4th at 522 (recognizing three

categories of state cases to which Younger abstention applies: “(1) state

criminal prosecutions, (2) civil enforcement proceedings, and (3) civil

proceedings involving certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the

state courts’ ability to perform their judicial functions” (quoting Elna

Sefcovic, 953 F.3d at 670)).

Plaintiff’s claims implicate the validity of the State of Oklahoma’s

criminal case against him. But if there is an ongoing state proceeding that

provides Plaintiff with an adequate opportunity to raise his relevant federal

claims and the state proceedings implicate an important state interest, then

Younger requires this Court to abstain. See id. at 523 (“Younger abstention is

required when three conditions are satisfied. First, the relevant state court

6

proceeding must be ongoing. Second, the state forum must provide an adequate

opportunity to raise the relevant federal claims. Third, an important state

interest must be present. Once these requirements have been met, Younger

abstention dictates that federal courts not interfere.” (internal quotation

marks and citations omitted)).

Plaintiff admits that the state criminal proceeding against him is

ongoing. See Doc. 10, at 11. So, the first condition is met.

As to the second inquiry, Plaintiff has not shown that the state court is

an inadequate forum to hear his constitutional challenges bearing on the

validity of Defendants’ arrest warrant and the sufficiency of the evidence

against him. See, e.g., Perez v. Ledesma, 401 U.S. 82, 84 (1971) (“The propriety

of arrests and the admissibility of evidence in state criminal prosecutions are

ordinarily matters to be resolved by state tribunals.”); see also Winn v.

Cook, 945 F.3d 1253, 1258 (10th Cir. 2019) (explaining that “‘unless state law

clearly bars the interposition of the federal statutory and constitutional

claims,’ a plaintiff typically has ‘an adequate opportunity to raise federal

claims in state court’” (quoting Crown Point I, LLC v. Intermountain Rural

7

Elec. Ass’n, 319 F.3d 1211, 1215 (10th Cir. 2003))).4 “And when constitutional

challenges impact state proceedings, as they do here, ‘proper respect for the

ability of state courts to resolve federal questions presented in state-court

litigation mandates that the federal court stay its hand.’” Morkel v. Davis, 513

F. App’x 724, 728 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, 481

U.S. 1, 14 (1987)).

As to the third condition, the State of Oklahoma necessarily has an

important interest in prosecuting crimes that have allegedly occurred within

its jurisdiction. See In re Troff, 488 F.3d 1237, 1240 (10th Cir. 2007)

(recognizing that “state control over criminal justice” is “a lynchpin in the

unique balance of interests” of federalism); see also Wilson v. Morrissey, 527 F.

App’x 742, 744 (10th Cir. 2013) (“[W]e have long recognized that the

prosecution of crimes occurring within its jurisdiction is an important state

interest.”).

4 Aside from possible relief by the state district court, the Oklahoma Court

of Criminal Appeals “may entertain certain extraordinary writs which arise

out of criminal matters.” Rule 10.1(A), Rules of the Okla. Ct. Crim. App., OKLA.

STAT. tit. 22, Ch. 18, App. And if Plaintiff is convicted, he may raise any federal

constitutional claims on direct appeal or by application for post-conviction

relief. OKLA. STAT. tit. 22, §§ 1051, 1080.

8

B. Plaintiff has not demonstrated an exception to Younger

abstention.

Because all three conditions are satisfied, this Court should abstain

unless Plaintiff meets his heavy burden of demonstrating an exception to

Younger abstention. “[A] federal plaintiff may overcome the presumption of

abstention ‘in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state

officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps

in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be

shown . . . .’” Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d 885, 889 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting

Perez, 401 U.S. at 85). “[M]ere allegations of bad faith or harassment,”

however, will not suffice. Id.

The Court considers three factors “in determining whether a prosecution

is commenced in bad faith or to harass: (1) whether it was frivolous or

undertaken with no reasonably objective hope of success; (2) whether it was

motivated by the defendant’s suspect class or in retaliation for the defendant’s

exercise of constitutional rights; and (3) whether it was conducted in such a

way as to constitute harassment and an abuse of prosecutorial discretion,

typically through the unjustified and oppressive use of multiple prosecutions.”

Phelps, 122 F.3d at 889. In his fourth claim, Plaintiff states Defendants started

an unlawful arrest against him to prevent him from telling the truth about the

9

events of January 24, 2024. Doc. 10, at 9. In his fifth claim, he alleges that

“[t]he officers also threaten[ed] [Ms. Rogers] that if the truth was told they

would arrest her then have our kids placed in (DHS) custody.” Id. at 11. But

because Plaintiff offers only allegations, they are more properly addressed by

an appeal or writ within the state court system. See Schwab v. Kansas, 691 F.

App’x 511, 514-15 (10th Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s decision to apply

Younger and deny the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction because the

plaintiffs provided no evidence of bad faith or harassment to meet their burden

to show an exception to Younger applied). Plaintiff thus establishes no Younger

exception applies to his claims.

Relatedly, Younger abstention is also required here because “federal

courts should not interfere with state court proceedings by granting equitable

relief—such as injunctions of important state proceedings or declaratory

judgments regarding constitutional issues in those proceedings—when a state

forum provides an adequate avenue for relief.” Weitzel v. Div. of Occupational

& Prof’l Licensing, 240 F.3d 871, 875 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation

marks omitted). This refusal to exercise federal jurisdiction is based on the

desire to “avoid undue interference with states’ conduct of their own affairs.”

J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999) (quoting

10

Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709, 711 (10th Cir. 1989)). So, the

undersigned recommends the Court stay this matter pending final resolution

of the state criminal proceeding against Plaintiff.

V. Recommendation and notice of right to object.

The undersigned recommends the Court abstain from exercising

jurisdiction over this matter until the State of Oklahoma resolves its criminal

prosecution against Plaintiff.5

The undersigned advises Plaintiff of his right to file an objection to this

Report and Recommendation with the Clerk of Court on or before

September 19, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b)(2). The undersigned further advises Plaintiff that failure to

file a timely objection to this Report and Recommendation waives the right to

appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein. See Moore

v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).

This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates

the referral to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter.

5 Plaintiff also moves to add Midwest City Police Department Officer Bill

Fisher as a Defendant, alleging his involvement in the underlying incident.

Doc. 11. The undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion as

moot.

11

ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2024.

hizo Ler > |

SUZANNE MITCHELL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12