Court won’t stop man’s ongoing criminal matter

Where a man indicted in state court moved to enjoin the prosecution, his motion was denied. He could challenge the indictment at the trial court and will have further opportunities to challenge the case against him at trial and in any appeal in the state court system.

Background

John P. McSheffrey has filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against employees of the Norfolk Commonwealth Attorney’s Office and the Norfolk Police Department to enjoin his state criminal prosecution.

Analysis

In Younger v. Harris, the Supreme Court created “a mandatory rule of equitable restraint, requiring the dismissal of a federal action that seeks to enjoin an ongoing prosecution in a state criminal proceeding.” To determine whether abstention under Younger is proper, a court must assess: “(1) whether there is ‘an ongoing state judicial proceeding’; (2) whether that state proceeding ‘implicate[s] important state interests’; and (3) whether that state proceeding provides ‘an adequate opportunity … to raise constitutional challenges.’”

Ongoing proceeding

McSheffrey’s state case was initiated by direct indictment on Jan. 6, 2021, long before McSheffrey filed suit in federal court on Nov. 24, 2021, attempting to stop the prosecution. Virginia’s prosecution of McSheffrey is an ongoing matter and a criminal jury trial is currently pending. Therefore, because there is an ongoing state proceeding that was initiated before the federal case, the first element of Younger abstention is met.

State interests

The second element of Younger abstention is whether the ongoing state case implicates an “important, substantial, or vital [state] interest.” Criminal proceedings always satisfy this element, as they serve as a state’s tool to prevent violations of its criminal laws and maintain the efficient operation of its criminal justice system.

Adequate opportunity

The third and final element of the Younger abstention doctrine is whether the state proceeding “provides an adequate opportunity for the plaintiff to raise the federal constitutional claim advanced in the federal lawsuit.” Here, Rule 3A:9(b)(l) and (2) of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides safeguards for criminal defendants in the Virginia court system by allowing them to make motions challenging “defects in the institution of the prosecution or in the written charge upon which the accused is to be tried.” McSheffrey has already made such a motion challenging the indictment, which was denied by the trial court.

Further the heading of McSheffrey’s indictment has been changed via valid motion from the prosecution to accurately reflect the charge against him. The court is satisfied that McSheffrey has had an adequate opportunity to challenge his indictment at the trial court and will have further opportunities to challenge the case against him at trial and in any appeal in the state court system. For these reasons, the final element of the Younger abstention doctrine is met, precluding the court from enjoining McSheffrey’s criminal prosecution.

‘Younger’ exceptions

The three scenarios in which Younger envisioned appropriate federal equitable intervention are: (1) where there is a showing of ‘bad faith” or “harassment” by state officials responsible for the prosecution; (2) where the state law to be applied in the criminal proceeding is “flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions” or (3) where there exist other “extraordinary circumstances in which the necessary irreparable injury can be shown even in the absence of the usual prerequisites of bad faith and harassment.” Because McSheffrey has failed to show that his case resembles any one of these three scenarios, these exceptions do not apply.

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction denied.

McSheffrey v. Wilder, Case No. 2:21-cv-630, July 18, 2022. EDVA at Norfolk (Jackson). VLW 022-3-309. 12 pp.