Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Hayes v. Henderson, 4:19-cv-04054. (2019)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20190827697 Visitors: 32
Filed: Aug. 26, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2019
Summary: ORDER BARRY A. BRYANT , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Review Charges. (ECF No. 30). Defendants have not responded, and the Court finds no response is necessary to rule on the motion. Plaintiff Ron Wesley Hayes filed this case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff is asserting claims against Defendants Henderson, Studdard, Adams, Griffeson and John Doe
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Review Charges. (ECF No. 30). Defendants have not responded, and the Court finds no response is necessary to rule on the motion.

Plaintiff Ron Wesley Hayes filed this case pro se pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 23, 2019. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on June 12, 2019. (ECF No. 6). Plaintiff is asserting claims against Defendants Henderson, Studdard, Adams, Griffeson and John Doe Officers from the Texarkana Arkansas Police Department for excessive force that occurred on April 19, 2019. He is also asserting a claim against Defendant King for denial of medical care. On August 22, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to supplement his complaint to include a claim for denial of medical care against Defendant Robert H. Harrison, the Chief of Police for the Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department. (ECF No. 29).

In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to review, and presumably overturn or dismiss, what he claims are false pending criminal state charges filed against him. (ECF No. 30). There is a fundamental policy against federal interference in state criminal prosecutions. Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). Here, it is obvious Plaintiff disagrees with the criminal charges filed against him. However, this does not warrant intervention by this Court. There is no evidence Plaintiff is threatened with any injury other than that incident to every criminal proceeding brought lawfully and in good faith. In addition, Plaintiff will have the opportunity to adequately adjudicate any constitutional concerns with his charges in the state criminal proceeding.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Review Charges (ECF No. 30) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer