FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OCT 3 0 2009
Clerk, U.S. District and
Robert A. Reed, ) Bankruptcy Courts
)
Petitioner, )
0°
)
v. ) Civil Action No. v ~)(J' 53
.....
)
John Caulfield et al., )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of habeas
corpus filed pro se and the accompanying application to proceed informa pauperis. The Court is
obligated either to issue the writ or to order the respondent to show cause why the writ should not
issue "unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. The Court will grant the in forma pauperis application and dismiss
the case.
Petitioner is a pretrial detainee at the District of Columbia's Correctional Treatment
Facility awaiting trial in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on a charge of first-
degree child sex abuse. Pet. at 2. The gravamen of the petition challenges the criminal
prosecution. Specifically, petitioner claims that the prosecuting witness was coerced into
providing a statement, offers an alibi defense, questions the authority of the prosecuting attorney
and the arresting police officer, and challenges the Superior Court's jurisdiction. Pet. at 5-6. He
seeks "immediate release from unlawful confinement." Id. at 5.
"[ A] federal court may dismiss an action when there is a direct conflict between the
exercise of federal and state jurisdiction and considerations of comity and federalism dictate that
the federal court should defer to the state proceedings." Hoai v. Sun Refining and Marketing Co.,
Inc., 866 F.2d 1515, 1517 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971);
Pennzoil Co., v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1,9-10 (1987)). Such is the case here because petitioner
will have the opportunity to litigate the underlying claims of this action in the pending criminal
proceeding in Superior Court. See Bridges v. Kelly, 84 F.3d 470, 476 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (finding
Younger doctrine applicable "when there are ongoing [judicial] state proceedings [that] implicate
important state interests [and] afford an adequate opportunity in which to raise the federal
claims"). Given "the fundamental policy against federal interference with state criminal
prosecutions" absent a showing of irreparable injury, Younger, 401 U.S. at 46, this Court--which
would necessarily have to reach the merits of the criminal prosecution to resolve the habeas
petition--will dismiss the case. I A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
G2----'. ~
United States District Juage
Date: October K, 2009
I Cf Younger, 401 U.S. at 49 ("[T]he injury that Harris faces is solely that incidental to
every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith ... and therefore under the settled
doctrine we have already described he is not entitled to equitable relief even if such statutes are
unconstitutional. ") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
2