“[T]he state courts will have the ability to take yet another look at his . . . Sixth Amendment claim . . . once his trial gets underway.”
How later courts described this case
- “[T]he state courts will have the ability to take yet another look at his . . . Sixth Amendment claim . . . once his trial gets underway.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUONUITTEHDE SRTNA DTIESST RDIICSTT ROICF TF LCOORUIRDTA
CASE NO. 26-60344-CIV-SINGHAL
LUTRICIA LUSHAN BROWN ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
HON. DEBORAH CARPENTER-TOYE, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lutricia Lushan Brown Allen’s
Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (the
“Motion”) (DE [6]) and a sua sponte review of the record. Plaintiff challenges ongoing
state criminal proceedings, raising constitutional and jurisdictional arguments against the
proceedings. But because this Court lacks jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S.
37 (1971), this case is dismissed.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 25, 2024, Plaintiff was pulled over for driving with an improper
license plate. (Complaint Affidavit (DE [1-12] at 3)). Her license plate read “Traveler, UCC
9-109(1) UCC 1-30B, and EXEMPT.” Id. After the officer approached her vehicle, he
asked for her driver’s license. Id. at 3-4. Plaintiff informed the officer that she was
travelling, not driving. Id. at 4. The officer asked Plaintiff to step out of the vehicle. Id. She
refused, and the officer opened her door to escort her out. Id. Plaintiff “began to tense her
arms and her entire body.” Id. The officer escorted Plaintiff out of the vehicle and arrested
her. Id.
Plaintiff was charged with failing to register a motor vehicle, attaching an
unassigned license plate to her vehicle, and resisting arrest. See (DE [1-14] at 5). A jury
trial is scheduled for February 11, 2026. (Hearing Trans. (DE [1-5] at 10)).
On February 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed this suit, arguing that the state court lacks
jurisdiction to prosecute her and that the state criminal proceedings violate her Sixth
Amendment right to a jury trial, right to counsel, and due process rights, among others.
See (DE [1] at 5-6). She also moved for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary
injunction, asking this Court to stay her criminal proceedings.1 (DE [6]).
II. DISCUSSION
Before addressing the merits of a case, the Court must ensure that it has
jurisdiction to hear the case. If the Court lacks jurisdiction, the Court may dismiss the case
sua sponte, even if the parties have not raised a question as to jurisdiction. See, e.g.,
Shepherd v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, As Tr. for Structured Asset Inv. Loan Tr. Mortg. Pass-
Through Certificates, Servs. 2005-4, 839 Fed. Appx. 304, 305 (11th Cir. 2020) (affirming
sua sponte dismissal for lack of jurisdiction under an abstention doctrine).
When a plaintiff sues in federal court, raising claims involving an ongoing state
criminal proceeding, the general rule is that the federal court must abstain from exercising
jurisdiction over the case. Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-45. Abstention “is required when: (1)
state proceedings, judicial in nature, are pending; (2) the state proceedings involve
important state interests; and (3) the state proceedings afford adequate opportunity to
raise the constitutional issue.” Johnson v. Fla., 32 F.4th 1092, 1099 (11th Cir. 2022).
“There are three narrow exceptions to the abstention doctrine: (1) there is evidence of
1 Plaintiff styled her Motions as “Emergency” because trial is set to commence in her case on February
11, 2026. But Plaintiff has known about the trial date since it was set on December 9, 2025. See (DE [1-
5] at 10). An emergency is not defined as a litigant filing something after waiting until the last minute and
then demanding speedy relief.
state proceedings motivated by bad faith; (2) irreparable injury would occur; or (3) there
is no adequate alternative state forum where the constitutional issues can be raised.” Id.
Here, Younger abstention applies. All the factors are met. There is a pending state
jury trial, and it involves the prosecution of state crimes, which is an important state
interest. Plaintiff can also raise her constitutional claims at her trial. See id. at 1100 (“[T]he
state courts will have the ability to take yet another look at his . . . Sixth Amendment claim
. . . once his trial gets underway.”).
None of the narrow exceptions apply either. There is no evidence that the
prosecution was motivated by bad faith. No irreparable injury will occur, because Plaintiff
can raise all of her constitutional issues at her trial. And her trial proceedings are an
adequate state forum to raise those constitutional arguments. See id.
“This is a classic case for Younger abstention. [Plaintiff] faces valid state criminal
charges. [S]he believes that [s]he has a potential constitutional defense to those charges,
but, as [the Court has] explained, [s]he can raise that defense in the state courts of
Florida.” Id. at 1102.
III. CONCLUSION
This Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction over this matter under
Younger. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Complaint (DE [1]) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. The Motion (DE [6]) is DENIED.
3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 10th day of
February 2026. \
RAAG 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to counsel of record via CM/ECF and via Postal Service to:
Lutirica-Lushan Brown-Allen
clo
1040 Park Drive
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33312
PRO SE