# Farrell

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · July 29, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415671

## Case

- **Full name:** Paris Williams v. Alyce Farrell, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** July 29, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415671

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PARIS WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-01555

v.
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
ALYCE FARRELL, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff Paris Williams (“Williams”) commenced this action on June 8, 2026, against
magisterial district judge Alyce Farrell (“MDJ Farrell”) and two Lackawanna County
Commissioners, Bill Gaughan and Chris Chermak. (Doc. 1; Doc. 8, at 1). Williams’s
complaint alleges that in his underlying criminal case, MDJ Farrell forged Williams’s
signature on documents from his arraignment, which Williams claims never took place. (Doc.
1, at 3; Doc. 8, at 1). Williams claims that his right to a fair trial was taken from him because
he was “prosecuted on fabricated and perjurized [sic] documentation.” (Doc. 1, at 3; Doc. 8,
at 2). Willaims also alleges that the county commissioners are also responsible for the actions
of the judges in Lackawanna County. (Doc. 1, at 4; Doc. 8, at 2). In Williams’s underlying
criminal case, he was charged with one misdemeanor count of making a false report to law
enforcement in violation of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4906(b)(1). Williams pled guilty and received
twelve months’ probation. (Doc. 8, at 2). Williams appealed his criminal conviction to the
Pennsylvania Superior Court, which remains pending. (Doc. 8, at 2). On June 25, 2026, Judge
Bloom conditionally granted Williams’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and
screened Williams’s complaint. (Doc. 8).
Presently before the Court is a report and recommendation filed by Judge Daryl F.
Bloom recommending that the Court dismiss Williams’s complaint without prejudice to
Williams reasserting his claims at the conclusion of his state court proceedings. (Doc. 8, at 8).
Judge Bloom determined that Willaims’s claims arise out of his ongoing criminal court
proceedings. (Doc. 8, at 7). Judge Bloom found that pursuant to the Younger abstention

doctrine, the Court should abstain from considering the merits of Williams’s claims involving
his ongoing criminal case. (Doc. 8, at 7). Judge Bloom informed Williams that he had
fourteen days to file an objection to the report and recommendation. (Doc. 8, at 8-9). No
objections have been timely filed. Having reviewed the reasoning of the report and
recommendation and relevant law, the Court will ADOPT the report and recommendation
in its entirety. (Doc. 8).
“A district court may ‘designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and

recommendations for the disposition’ of certain matters pending before the court.” Brown v.
Astrue, 649 F.3d 193, 195 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)). Within fourteen
days of being served a report and recommendation, “any party may serve and file written
objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When a party timely files objections, the district court is to conduct a de
novo review of the challenged portions of the Magistrate Judge’s findings unless the objection
is “not timely or not specific.” Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir.1984); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). The Court may then “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings and
recommendations.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Although the standard is de novo, the extent of

review is committed to the sound discretion of the district judge, and the court may rely on
the recommendations of the magistrate judge to the extent it deems proper.” Rahman v.
Gartley, No. CV 3:23-363, 2024 WL 555894, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 12, 2024) (citing United v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676 (1980)).
The Court agrees with the sound reasoning of the report and recommendation and

discerns no error of law. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the report and
recommendation (Doc. 8) is ADOPTED IN ITS ENTIRETY as the opinion of the Court.
The complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice to Williams reasserting his claims
at the conclusion of his state court proceedings.

Dated: July 29, 2026 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11415671. Public record. Not legal advice.