Smith v. Jackson

E.D. Arkansas

Smith v. Jackson

DecidedJuly 8, 2024

Docket4:24-cv-00546

StatusUnknown

This text of Smith v. Jackson (Smith v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Smith v. Jackson, (E.D. Ark. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DERRICK WADE SMITH PLAINTIFF VS. 4:24-CV-00546-BRW WHITLEY JACKSON, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 and submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set out below, the case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED as MOOT. I take judicial notice of the public records related to Plaintiff’s pending state court case.2 A court may raise the doctrine of abstention sua sponte.3 The abstention doctrine enunciated in

Younger v. Harris “directs federal courts to abstain from accepting jurisdiction in cases where equitable relief is requested and where granting such relief would interfere with pending state proceedings in such a way as to offend principles of comity and federalism.”4 After careful review, I find that the abstention doctrine applies here.

1 Doc. No. 1. 2 See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (addressing federal court's ability to take judicial notice of public records). 3 Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 683 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.9 (8th Cir. 1982) (citing Belloti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976)). 4 Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 477 n.1 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Judgment will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2024.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION DERRICK WADE SMITH PLAINTIFF VS. 4:24-CV-00546-BRW WHITLEY JACKSON, ET AL. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee at the Pulaski County Detention Center, filed pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 and submitted an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set out below, the case is DISMISSED. Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED as MOOT. I take judicial notice of the public records related to Plaintiff’s pending state court case.2 A court may raise the doctrine of abstention sua sponte.3 The abstention doctrine enunciated in

Younger v. Harris “directs federal courts to abstain from accepting jurisdiction in cases where equitable relief is requested and where granting such relief would interfere with pending state proceedings in such a way as to offend principles of comity and federalism.”4 After careful review, I find that the abstention doctrine applies here.

1 Doc. No. 1. 2 See Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757, 760 n.2 (8th Cir. 2005) (addressing federal court's ability to take judicial notice of public records). 3 Edwards v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 683 F.2d 1149, 1156 n.9 (8th Cir. 1982) (citing Belloti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132, 143 n.10 (1976)). 4 Night Clubs, Inc. v. City of Fort Smith, 163 F.3d 475, 477 n.1 (8th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. Judgment will be entered accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2024.

Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Smith v. Jackson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-jackson-ared-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack